>>>Protestantism is running its course. All the protest is getting tired.

Having converted to Catholicism this year, I can remember realizing a few years ago that probably 90% of my favorite Christian thinkers were Catholic. You start to get a sinking feeling that you are missing something when that happens.

As far as the protest getting tired—my theory is that the advent of the internet (which, in the grand scheme of things, has only just begun) will result in the opposite effect of the printing press. Whereas the printing press provided the opportunity to get just enough info out there to be dangerous and cause serious confusion, the internet allows you to check the sources, see the debates, and really get down to brass tacks on all of the issues from the comfort of your own home. Academics aren’t the only ones with the ability to take a serious look at Church History now.

Excellent comment, Crazy Ivan. I think more “institutationalized” Catholics need to focus more on the good that can be wrought by the Intertubes (though folks have been saying that for 15 years)... it’s not just about evangelization, but it’s about putting the source data out there in an objective fashion (pie charts and historigrams as a tool of evangelization? Why not?). And I also have to say: you have the coolest nickname based on a baffle-clearing maneuver that I’ve seen on NCR.

On a recent “Journey Home” with Marcus Grodi program (on EWTN), a guest made the following observation (which I paraphrase):

1) The Protestants converting to Catholicism tend to be people who understand theology, Church history, etc. quite well, and who are seeking to take their Christian faith to a deeper level.

2) Catholics that leave the Catholic Church tend too be ‘poorly catechized’ and never really understood well the deeper aspects (‘mysteries’) of the Catholic faith.

While there are always exceptions, 1 & 2 align with the point of this article, with my observations, and with my own “conversion” story. :)

“Those leaving the Church seem to be lost and searching souls that most likely had no idea what they were leaving in the first place.”

I’ve noticed this, too. I’ve heard several cradle Catholics-turned-Protestant start debates with Catholics about religion. In my experience, they know very little about the Catholic faith.

When they become young adults, rather than seriously evaluate the religion with which their parents raised them and coming to know the faith through the eyes of an adult, they turn to other religions or Christian denominations for answers.

They never get beyond a childhood understanding of the Catholic faith, so it is only natural that they go looking for something more meaningful.

I think one way to combat this is more young adult programs. Protestant churches do a great job of attracting this segment of the population.

I am a convert to Catholicism as well.  The Bible brought me to the Catholic Church and the Liturgy is what keeps me there…Christ in both Word and Sacrament.  I thank the Holy Spirit for drawing me into something deeper than Praise and Worship bands and power sermons, which no longer was quenching my thirst.  The old question is do we bring the church into the world OR the world into the church?  And the Catholic Church isn’t constantly re-inventing the wheel.

You said:
“people who convert to Catholicism do so on account of their reason.”
and
“Whereas those that leave the Church do so based on some emotion or negative experience associated with the Church.”

My experience has been the opposite. People usually leave Catholicism because of dogmas and traditions not found in scriptures. The whole reformation was founded on “reason”. The Doctrine of purgatory denies the sufficiency of Christ completed work on the cross. If we must pay for our transgressions? was not Christs death on the cross sufficient?  The reason I left Catholicism was because of reason.

John:
when
you give your disobedient child consequences
for his behavior , don’t you still forgive him?
You misunderstand Catholic teaching.
Purgatory is a cleansing/ purging of the temporal consequences for our Sins, which of course are forgiven through the precious blood shed on the cross. Scripture tells us no one unclean or impure can see God. Purgatory is His kindness and mercy to purify us before we see his face!
No of us are without sin or concupiscence when we breath our last. Purgatory gets us ready to see him.
Read about cs Lewis comments about purgatory. He was also a big proponent.
God bless

John,

Everything the Catholic church professes and believes is found in sacred scripture and sacred tradition.  I urge you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Specifically the paragraphs on purgatory: 1030-32.  See also1 Cor:3:15; 1Pet 1:7; Mt 12:31 and especially 2 Macc 12:46 (put it together with 1 Cor 3:15).  If purgatory doesn’t exist, why do we pray for the dead, mentions of hope for the dead is found in the bible. See Ruth 2:20; and 2 Macc 12:46 again.  People who leave the church because of dogmas and traditions not found in scripture means they fall into the same trap that fundamentalists do: that everything you need to know about salvation is found in the bible, or Sola Scriptura. Where is that in the bible?  It doesn’t exist.  Please come home!

Love the article!!! While those who leave the Church do not know their faith very well, and this is why the majority do convert, many who do leave the Church do so because:
(1) they really do want a dynamic relationship with Jesus Christ which they find more in people of other faiths rather than in the Catholics around them;
(2) they are not getting fed spiritually / their needs are not being met or not being met where they are at (which is not always on the doctrinal level but in fellowship, fun, inspiration, attractive presentation,  truths that are pertinent/helpful to real life, and concrete help like mowing lawns, etc.)
In this sense, many Catholic communities have a long ways to go.

I recently attended a conference ,on Faith and Science, where the presenters and participants were evangelical scientists ,professors and intellectuals .They were inspirational in their Faith and Reason.I was surprised by the frequent referral to Catholic sources like Origen,Clement and Augustine . Dei Verbum, the Catholic document on Revelation(Vatican II).was also cited. Evangelical intellectuals have a great deal in common with Catholics

Matthew, Well done!  “A Deeper Look” was right on target.  You’ll see many of the thoughts echoed at ChristianityRichly.com.  Easiest access is probably the URL at the end of this comment, because it contains links to my five reasons for converting: certainty, history, unity, authority, and liturgy.  I’m encouraged daily to see serious evangelical Christians seeking full communion with the Church (and particularly encouraged by the number of godly, thoughtful young people).  Thanks for pointing to an important trend, and of course, I’m grateful daily for National Catholic Register.  See http://christianityrichly.com/about for more.

The Holy spirit didn’t descend on Luther.but to the Apostles..
Before the bible there was the Catholic Church..
The bible belongs to the Catholic Church.

I would really love to know what those who convert to (or out of Catholicism) from (or to) Evangelical Protestantism really know about Christ’s atonement and redemption, how it specifically fulfills the OT’s sacrificial system, and how thoroughly they have studied Scripture. I ask because lots of Catholic and Evangelical preaching has nothing to do with developing a substantial understanding of Christianity’s most basic beliefs! Most of it has to do with politics, social causes or a superficial understanding of profound spiritual priniciples. Let’s not forget that it’s Christ Who saves— not faith, not works, not faith and works, and certainly not denominational membership or confessional adherence.

Oh my!  What will Billy Graham do?  Will HE convert?

As a cradle Catholic who is close to the status of a buried Catholic, I have to second the motions of those who think catechesis is the basis for the failure of most people who leave the Church to understand the true reality of the Mystical Body (and how many readers are going to understand why I use that phrase in this context?) But please don’t blame “the spirit of Vatican II.” Believe me, the failure of real catechisis started much earlier. I experienced it in the 40’s and 50’s and I thank God daily that he enabled me to ignore my religion teachers and learn from the liturgy. I was fortunate enough to attend daily Mass before the advent of the Least Common Denominator liturgy when the average parishioner was assumed to be a high school dropout from a background with no ethnic traditions. Granted, the Church has incredible (and authoritative) appeal to those who THINK about faith issues but the liturgy is the beating heart of parish life and where it is taken for granted no amount of lawn mowing will make a community.

informative n a wonderful article…
‘depth’ is what is so wonderful and fulfilling about the catholic church…giving you answers u cannot find..

This was foreseen long ago that all Christian denominations, including the Greek and Eastern Orthodox Christians, will eventually come back to Catholicism in droves, then there will truly be one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, praise be to God Almighty and to the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is now imminent and He who said is returning will return and will not delay, because this world is longer safe for God’s people to live in anymore. All glory, honor, majesty and praise belongs to our Lord God, Yahweh and His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, Amen.

Patrick Madrid is a cradle Catholic.

It would be interesting to see those who convert to catholicism from protestantism and look deeply at what the Catholic church teaches on various matters. I think they will be shocked.

Faithful,

I am aprotestant turned Catholic.  I have looked deeply at the Chruches teachings on many matters.  I am curious as to what, specifically, you are talking about that would be so shocking.  Pleas tell me.

I’ve noticed this trend for decades—at least with the celebrity converts from Catholicism to Evangelicalism, the reasons they give for switching is that they weren’t “being feed” (their emotions weren’t satisfied) in the Catholic Church, or that they discovered that they didn’t need Holy Communion (which they weren’t allowed now that they were divorced-and-remarried) to feel close to Jesus; on the other hand, famous converts from Evangelicalism to Catholicism give reasons for believing that the Church is THE Church.
There may be exceptions to this rule (anybody know about Newt Gingrich’s conversion?) but that seems to be the general rule.

The Marian dogmas for one. Have you looked at the evidence for her immaculate conception and assumption? Have you found any passages in the NT that exhorts you to pray to her?

Faithful,
Faithful,
Yes, I have looked at evidence for her Immaculate conception.  The short answer i that the angel Gabriel said to her at the Annunciation “Hail, full of grace…”  The term ‘grace’ in the original language (I forget if it’s Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew) means not just full of grace at that time but for all time.  When Eve took the apple and gave it to Adam they fell from grace.  They were in perfect grace with God.  Since Mary is referred to as “full of grace” the assumption is she is constantly at one with God.  She was born that way, without sin.  Mary was born immaculately, sinless and full of the grace of God.  The theology goes much deeper than thist but that’s the long and short of it.  We also believe in her perpetual virginity.

The reason why we pray to Mary — If you want someone to do something for you, isn’t the best thing you can do is to ask His mother to ask Him?

ToddC
Let me encourage to look up what the phrase “full of grace” means in a NT Greek lexicon. It does not mean full of grace at that time but for all time. Secondly, the angel is greeting her and this is not a title either. Actually a better translation is “hail favored one” which refers only to her part in being the mother of Christ. (Did you know that Stephen is also said to be “full of grace” in Acts 6:8?) Secondly, do any of the apostles in their writings speak of her as being sinless? Also, the Scripture never speaks how she was concieved and no one knows what happened to her in regards to her death. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary.
The only One we are exhorted to pray to is God-Christ and in His name. There are no prayers to Mary in Scripture.

To Don Schenk @ 10:40 AM:
Re: the celebrity converts from Catholicism to Evangelicalism . . .
____________________________________________________________________

Your average celebrity usually marries more than once.  I have a theory that many are just ‘shopping around’ for a one-size-fits-all ‘designer religion’ that won’t be so quick to judge them for marrying several times.

In other words, circumstances (rather than dogma) often enter into the decision to leave the Catholic Church.

Don:
Re: “the celebrity converts from Catholicism to Evangelicalism”...

Your average celebrity usually marries more than once.  I have a theory that many are just ‘shopping around’ for a one-size-fits-all ‘designer religion’ that won’t be so quick to judge them for marrying several times.

In other words, circumstances (rather than dogma) often enter into the decision to leave the Catholic Church.

Gee, Faithful, I guess I can’t ask for your prayers.

God bless,
Dan

“Posted by dan on Friday, Aug 6, 2010 11:51 AM (EST):Gee, Faithful, I guess I can’t ask for your prayers.”
You can ask me to pray to you because i’m alive in this world and have a responsiblity to pray for others. You have no way to know if the dead can hear your prayers. The other problem with praying to dead is purgatory. Can those in purgatory hear your prayers and do something for you? 

The only One we are to pray to is God-Christ Who is our Great High Priest. See Hebrews 4:14-16.

I am a convert from Protestantism to Eastern Orthoidoxy. I looked into the Catholic Church, but did not find the depth of spirituality that my soul was longing for. It seems that when the Western Church departed from the unity of the faith as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils,it lost something of its spiritual depth. I could never become a member of the Catholic Church until it acknowledges where it erred a millenium ago. Only then can we join hand and hand and walk together into the future.

Faithful,

Please clarify: ‘Let me encourage to look up what the phrase “full of grace” means in a NT Greek lexicon. It does not mean full of grace at that time but for all time.’  Isn’t that what I said?  Also, I’m not sure what NT Greek lexicon you mean. The term in Luke 1:28 as cited by the Catechism of the Catholic Church is, “Hail, full of grace; the Lord is with you”. Notice he didn’t say, “The Lord will be with you, shortly,” or, “the Lord was with you before but not now.”  He said He is with you; she is full of His grace, even though she has not yet conceived.  There are several different translations of the bible.  I use the Ignatius RSV, Catholic edition.  I’m not sure what NT Greek lexicon you mean.  Who published it? Who translated it?  Gabriel also calls her “blessed among women.”  In the canticle of Mary, Luke 1:46-56, she says “...henceforth all generations will call me blessed;” God has singled her out, not just at the time of Jesus’ birth but from and for all time.  Also, Stephen, the first martyr was called ‘full of grace and power’ by Luke, not the angel of the Lord, Gabriel.  I think Luke meant that in context of what Stephen was doing with his faith and the fact that, when he was martyred, he actually saw Jesus, didn’t he?  Other than Paul, he is the only one to actually see Jesus outside of the apostles after Christ’s resurrection!

Scripture never says how Mary was conceived, true as can be.  And no one knows what happened to Mary, either.  The only thing I would add to that is, if you read Revelation, chapter 12, verse 1, John’s vision of a “woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars,” is an obvious reference to Mary.  The Book of Revelation is a vision of the Catholic liturgy, as the heavenly liturgy.  Mary has an important role in not only our salvation but as the mother of God.

And, no there are no prayers to Mary in scripture. You are right.  Catholics believe in the intercession of the saints, of which Mary is one.  Our God is the God of the living, not of the dead.  The saints in heaven are more alive than us saints on earth. They are already in heaven.  Don’t you think they are closer to God than we are? All we ask is for their intercession, to plead our case to Jesus, the one and only true Mediator.  There aren’t any exhortations as to how pray in any other way than the ‘Our Father’.  Does that mean it’s the only prayer we should pray?  No.

You bring up some very good points.  God bless you and may the peace of Christ be with you!

One other thing, Faithful, we don’t pray to those in Purgatry, we pray for them, in hopes of shortening their time in it.  Peace!

Faithful, the mother of Jesus is not dead.  She is more alive than you or me, as she sees her Lord and our Lord face-to-face. 

Can those in purgatory hear our words?  I don’t know.  I leave that in our Lord’s hands.  He knows best. 

You know, I strongly suggest that you visit catholic.com and learn what the church really teaches.  As the late Bishop Sheen so accurately stated: “There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church….As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.”

God bless,
Dan

I noticed long ago that Protestants joining the Catholic Church had read the Bible a lot, while those leaving the Catholic Church for Protestantism rarely did.  This was true in my case as well.

Faithful, Mary prophesied that all generations would call her blessed. How can we call her blessed without praying to her? Elizabeth showed us this clearly:

“And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.”

Just wondering if this comment window works. The last one didn’t and I lost my post.

What amazes me about Mary the mother of Jesus is, that she should have anything to do with us at all.

After all we her fellow man tortured and murdered her only Son. Now what do you think of that.

She has got to be the most forgiving person who ever lived, and Catholics do not pray to her, we ask her to intercede with her Son on our behalf.

ToddC—this is what full of grace means in Luke 1:28. The same word is used of the saints in Eph 1:6—), grace. To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharit?mén?, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitó? declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitó? is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace. 

Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G5486). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers

Notice no mention of being sinless for life.

“ToddC One other thing, Faithful, we don’t pray to those in Purgatry, we pray for them, in hopes of shortening their time in it.  Peace!”
How do you know anyone specifically is there and for how long? How do you know some saint from a few hundred years ago that you may pray to is there and can hear you?

This is one of many examples of what happens when churches go beyond the revealed word and put their faith in things that have no evidence for.

“dan -Faithful, the mother of Jesus is not dead.  She is more alive than you or me, as she sees her Lord and our Lord face-to-face.”
How do you know she can hear your prayers and millions of others? It may sound reasonable as many things do but that does mean its true. Those that knew her i.e. the Lord Jesus and His apostles never exhort anyone to pray to her. The only One we are promised Who does indeed hear is the Lord Jesus. The Word of God tells us this and does not tell us to pray to Mary or anyone else.

“Dawn -Faithful, Mary prophesied that all generations would call her blessed. How can we call her blessed without praying to her? Elizabeth showed us this clearly:

“And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.”
Mary is blessed for the significant part for bringing Christ into the world and raising the Lord Jesus. It does not follow that you should pray to her. The Lord Jesus never taught this nor did the apostles.

Faithful is right.  “Grace” means “unmerited favor”.  Mary found favor with God, and He chose her to be the mother of Jesus.  I have a question ... why in Luke 1:47 does Mary call God her Savior.  If Mary was sinless, why would she need a savior?  Would love to hear your views.  Thank you!

Reference Pope Benedict’s recent catechesis.

Faithful,

Re: Purgatory

How do we know they aren’t there?  We don’t. 

Re: This is one of many examples of what happens when churches go beyond the revealed word and put their faith in things that have no evidence for.

That’s an interesting statement.  It seems Protestants have no trouble giving the Catholic Church the credit and authority to actually assemble the very bible they use to try and tear down our faith, but can’t seem to credit the Church with any ability to interpret scripture.  Catholic doctrine developed over the years through prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Jesus said the gates of hell wouldn’t stand against the Church. He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. He also gave his apostles the authority to loose and bind, forgive and retain.  That authority was intended to be handed down.  When Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom (see Isaiah 22 for context) it was meant to be a beginning, not an end; for him to be the rock upon which the Church was built.  The line of popes can be traced from Peter to Benedict XVI.  Christ’s instruction for his disciples to baptize and teach wasn’t meant to stop when the last of the twelve died.  He gave Peter the earthly authority to set up the church, and to pass along the faith.  Even Paul had to get Peter’s blessing and permission to go out and evangelize.  The point is the Church’s authority is rooted in scripture.  You can agree with what they proclaim or not, it’s totally up to you.  I choose to believe in what the Catholic Church professes because they’ve had the blessing of Christ for 2000 years.  I’d rather go with that than all of the other cackling voices that seem to think they are so much older, wiser and somehow have a better understanding of salvation history than the Church.  Peace.

ToddC
Just because God used the Catholic church to put the canon of the NT together does not mean its always right. Purgatory is a case in point of a chuch that goes beyond what is written. This is not the only thing that it does. As for the Peter being the supreme leader of the NT church is not supported by the NT and the idea of popes tracing the office to Peter is not possible historically. There was no supreme leader of the church until centuries later.

To those earnestly seeking the ancient faith of the Church and the pure faith of Christ, I strongly urge you to visit the Eastern Orthodox Church. Eastern Orthodoxy offers you the Biblical faith of Christ, without the Roman Catholic errors of papal infallibility, papal rule over the churches, purgatory, the immaculate conception, and Mary’s co-redeemership with Christ. There is only one Lord and one Atonement, which is Christ. Eastern Orthodoxy also nourishes your soul with the oldest liturgy celebrated today, the ancient liturgy of St. John Chrystostom dating to the earliest centuries of the Church. Because all Orthodox Christians are united in the Gospel without addition or detraction and united in the living Body and Blood of Christ, they walk in the unity, peace, joy, and illumination of faith, without the confusion of numerous denominations. “Come and see!” say the Orthodox, we welcome your inquiry. Please visit orthodoxinfo.org for more info that will challenge your current perspectives. Also check out the “Orthodox Study Bible,” which gives many annotations of the early Church Fathers that illumine the Scriptures as the Church originally understood them.

Faithful, what Mary proclaimed (“henceforth all generations will call me blessed”, Luke 1:48) is a prophecy. And it is a prophecy that will be fulfilled by every generation from her generation til the coming of Christ. Where can one be assured to hear these words being proclaimed? The Catholic Church. Note how Elizabeth said them as well; “loudly”, or “with a loud woice.”  Not being facetious but I doubt Mary was hard of hearing. These words are proclaimed loudly (audibly) as a way in which we can know where to find Christ’s Church.

My apologies to those earnestly seeking the ancient and pure Faith. The website to visit is orthodoxinfo.com, not orthodoxinfo.org. God bless your search into the early Church!

mn, Mary wasn’t created sinless in order to save us. She was sinless in order to bring our Lord into the world. Could you imagine God giving Christ a harlot for a mother? OK, if not, then how about a thief? A liar? How about a perfect spotless mother? Isn’t Jesus worthy of that? Jesus said if we ask for a fish will He give us a serpent? We can rest assured that the Father gave His Son a perfect, sinless Mother who was saved just like us all, except she was saved before entering the world so she could fulfill her special role and purpose.

Whoever thinks “The whole reformation was founded on ‘reason,’” has never read any of Martin Luther.  Luther wrote, “reason is the Devil’s !@#$%.”  He thought the Church had complicated the faith and he wanted to simplify it.

“Dawn—, what Mary proclaimed (“henceforth all generations will call me blessed”, Luke 1:48) is a prophecy.”
I agree. All generations do call her blessed. However, just because someone is blessed does not mean you are to pray to her.

Faithful,

First, we do not “pray to Mary” in the way that you are implying.  We implore her.  We ask her to pray for us.  I think we do ourselves an injustice when we use the phrase “Pray to Mary”.  Pray can also mean “to address”.  As in “Pray tell”.

pray (pr?)

transitive verb

  1. to implore or beseech: now seldom used except as the elliptical form of “I pray you”: pray tell me
  2. to ask for by prayer or supplication; beg for imploringly
  3. to recite (a prayer)
  4. to bring about, get, etc. by praying

http://www.yourdictionary.com/pray

Also, on the cross Jesus gives Mary to us in a special way.  John represents the world and Jesus says to him “Here is your Mother”...

There is also a “type” in the old testament with David and Bathsheba, where David sets her throne at his right hand. 

Plus, Mary is a “type” of the ark of the covenant.  She is the New ark that carried Our Lord.  She had to be perfect in every way.  She could not carry God if she were not sinless.  She is also the New Eve.  Eve started out sinless and fell.  Mary started out sinless and did not fall, but instead fulfilled Eves role.

Then there is the whole praying to the dead thing.  If Jesus died so that we might live, then anyone that dies a believer, does not really die at all.  We are not praying to dead people.  We are praying to living people.  They just don’t “live” on earth.  You are the ones that claim to “KNOW” you are saved, so I’m confused as to why you would wonder how we are sure these people are in heaven.  According to protestant teaching all you need to do is believe and you are guaranteed eternal life, no?

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

As for Peter being the pope…don’t get me started. 

Why is it that Protestants believe the world was created in 6 literal days, when clearly the creation story is just that, a story, a way to make the incomprehensible creation of the universe comprehensible, but when it comes to the Eucharist, the Papacy, the Priesthood, Confession and the sacraments, you suddenly go all “parable/analogy/metaphor”? 

How much more clear could John be…I AM the Bread of Life.  Heck, half of his disciples walked away because Jesus refused to say He was only speaking figuratively!

As a former Free Methodist Preacher I would like to address Evangelical converts to the Church of Rome. We are told by the Apostle to “contend for the faith”. That faith was given through “word and letter” or Holy Tradition. St. Vincent of Lorins admonshes the beliver to grasp the Catholic faith; “that which has been believed every where, always by all.” (Comm.3) 434a.d.). This is found in the ancient Liturgy and the Bible. Vat.II greatly altered it in content and form. Any true seeker can study the true way in the Ottaviani Intervention and “Orthodox Prayers of Old England” by the Holy Synod of Milan or the “Orthodox Missal” by St. luke’s Priory Press.

I am a convert but I also attend a prayer group with some protestants and evangelicals.  Our goal is prayer for people in need of it and we also pray for our country.  We stay away from theological discussions because it would be detrimental to our prayer goal. I must say though that it is always interesting to hear my non-Catholic friends in this group talk about things that they feel they need for their next spiritual step.  They will often go on to describe something “missing” in their spiritual life that is a sacrament in the Church.  How little they really know about the Catholic Church.  They think that we are “wrong” when the things they thirst for are in the Church.  I was once where they are.  I have no surprise that there are many converts.  I just hope that they will receive the guidance they need.  I have had to really work hard to know more about the Church and it has been worth every minute!

Faithful—-Catholics and Protestants understand the meaning of “pray” differently. Protestants use it as a term of adoration, praise of God. Catholics on the other hand will say “pray” when we ask any one - those on earth or those in heaven to intercede for us with God. No we don’t need to “pray” to Mary but as the mother of Jesus, we believe that she is in a position to “pray” to her Son.  By saying we “pray” to Mary does not mean we adore her- that is for God alone. We do honor , her, however as we believe her Son would want.

As a former Free Methodist Preacher, now Anglican had I converted to Rome I would have not found a genuine Apostolic Church but the vestages of Holy Tradition. Vat.II has reformed thr the Church of Rome and it’s rule of worship (Lex Orandi) into a new belief (Lex Credendi).[see “The Ottavani Intervention”]. The ancient Liturgy that prduces holiness and right worship can be found in “Orthodox Prayers of Old England”:Holy Synod of Milan and “The Orthodox Missal” Priory of St. Luke (see Vincent Lorins: The Commitorium)(2Thes 2:15;3:6;Jude 1:3).

I was born into a family on both sides that were Catholics, for generations, and I had 12 years of Catholic education, and never left the Church.

That said, it was only when I read Scripture, from cover to cover, several years ago, that I truly understood the IMPORTANT aspects of the Christian faith.  Previously, my faith had been external - going to Mass, saying the rosary, doing devotions, and being distracted by a multitude of saints, asking them for help by doing novenas.

If you’d have asked me to describe what God was like, as a Godhead, I couldn’t tell you.  I couldn’t give you any idea at all of what the Holy Spirit was, or what He was like.

With all the parishes going to a non-gender version of God (to not offend women…) frankly, I don’t think many of our clergy knows what God is like either.

So it confuses me to see “evangelicals” that were IN the Word, and who KNEW God, coming to the Catholic church, with its masses of distractions, anything is used to stay AWAY from the Bible, and to keep us from KNOWING God.  I just don’t get the attraction.

... I forgot to add that it seems to me the Catholic Church is more the product of the Church Fathers, men that were born 200 years after the death of Jesus, after Pentecost, and after the deaths of the apostles, from which we get the term “apostolic”.

So it seems the Deposit of Faith that JESUS and His Apostles left His Church got tweaked during the period of time after Pentecost and the early Church days, during times of the “Church Fathers”.

What we have today - in the Roman Catholic Church - is the result of the Church Fathers, not Jesus or His apostles.  What denomination most closely resembles the Church Jesus and His apostles left?

anything is used to stay AWAY from the Bible, and to keep us from KNOWING God.  I just don’t get the attraction.

Seriously?  You think Catholics stay AWAY from the bible?  If we go to daily mass for three years running we will have heard the bible from cover to cover.  I am a daily mass goer for the last 18 years.  That means I have heard the bible from cover to cover six time.  Plus I take a scripture course.  This will be my third year and counting.

I think this is what we mean when we say that the protestants don’t really know what the Catholic Church teaches.  A statement like the one above just confirms our suspicions.

Do you understand the significance of giving Peter the “Keys to the Church”?  Because every Jew that heard Him say it sure did.  It was a reference to Isaiah 22:30-23

  On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
21
  I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
22
  6 I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.
23
  I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family;

He is talking about replacing the old Royal Officer with a new one.  Out with old ways, and in with the new.  The Royal Officer is given keys to the kingdom.  He is in charge while the King is away.  Should he die before the King returns, he is to pass the keys on to a new Royal Minister.  As long as he held the keys, he also held the authority.  Every Jew knew this.  So when Jesus gives Peter the keys, all the Jewish Leaders blanched.  They KNEW that Jesus was saying they’re time was up.  In 70 years time the Temple would be gone, a new kingdom would be established and a new Royal Minister…Peter…would have the keys and authority until Jesus, the King, returns.  Peter, as Royal Minister would pass those keys along, as long as it took, til Jesus returned.  Hence, the Papacy.  A long line of Royal Ministers right down to Pope Benedict today!

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

... I forgot to add that it seems to me the Catholic Church is more the product of the Church Fathers, men that were born 200 years after the death of Jesus, after Pentecost, and after the deaths of the apostles, from which we get the term “apostolic”.

And perhaps protestants are the product of Sola Scriptura, a book that was not in existence until 300 years after the death of Jesus…no?

What Scripture did Paul follow?  How about his followers?

Cradle Catholic.
So what you are saying is that the Church fathers got it wrong?  You can’t have it both ways—-either what has been taught is true or it is not. Why would Jesus come to earth, suffer and die , found a church with the Apostles only to have his message “tweaked” by the followers of the Apostles. If the Deposit of faith could only be interpreted by He and the Apostles why bother at all—-He might have as well stayed on Earth or waited until videotape was invented and then you could be sure that no one had gotten his message wrong !

Also, not all the church fathers were that removed from Jesus…take Ignatius for example, a contemporary of Peter…and his words on the Eucharist and the papacy:
*
St. Ignatius of Antioch was a pagan by birth and a Syrian. He became the third bishop of Antioch and may be considered an apostolic Father in the sense that he heard the Apostle John preach. About 110 A.D. he was sentenced to a martyr’s death in the arena by the Emperor Trajan, who also put Pope Clement to death. On the almost 1000 mile journey to Rome from Antioch, Syria, the third largest city of the Empire, Ignatius wrote seven letters, which are his only surviving letters. They are addressed to Christian communities he presided over as bishop. He speaks of the Eucharistic mystery in mystical terms saying, “Therefore arm yourselves with gentleness, renew yourselves in faith, which is the Flesh of the Lord, and in charity, which is the Blood of Jesus Christ.” His most famous passage says:

  Charity is no concern to them, nor are widows and orphans or the oppressed . . .They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised . . .
~
http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist.htm

Faithful, how exactly are we to call Mary blessed and how are we to know the prophecy of hers is being fulfilled if we don’t use our tongues and call her blessed? We call Mary blessed just like Elizabeth did in the Bible; we call her blessed using our voices. I’ve heard Protestants say the same thing you did - “we do call Mary blessed…” but I have yet to hear one single Protestant actually DO it. For the prophecy to be fulfilled it has to be proclaimed for the whole world to hear.

Dawn wrtes- “Faithful, how exactly are we to call Mary blessed and how are we to know the prophecy of hers is being fulfilled if we don’t use our tongues and call her blessed? We call Mary blessed just like Elizabeth did in the Bible; we call her blessed using our voices. I’ve heard Protestants say the same thing you did - “we do call Mary blessed…” but I have yet to hear one single Protestant actually DO it. For the prophecy to be fulfilled it has to be proclaimed for the whole world to hear.”

Speaking about Mary being blessed does not require you to pray to her. I can talk of great things someone has done in the past but that does not mean I pray to them. What the Catholic church has done is to exalt her far beyond what the Scripture says. As i have said before there are no prayers to her in the entire corpus of Scripture. There is only One we should pray to and to ask in His name.

Newnews writes-“Faithful—-Catholics and Protestants understand the meaning of “pray” differently. Protestants use it as a term of adoration, praise of God. Catholics on the other hand will say “pray” when we ask any one - those on earth or those in heaven to intercede for us with God. No we don’t need to “pray” to Mary but as the mother of Jesus, we believe that she is in a position to “pray” to her Son.  By saying we “pray” to Mary does not mean we adore her- that is for God alone. We do honor , her, however as we believe her Son would want.”

The Catholic church certainly does adore her. Here is a hymn of praise to her:
“Hail Virgin, dearest Mary, Queen of May
(S. M. Yenn, © 1919, The St. Gregory Hymnal, 1947)

Hail Virgin, dearest Mary!
Our lovely Queen of May!
O spotless, blessed Lady,
Our lovely Queen of May.”
Your children, humbly bending,
Surround your shrine so dear;
With heart and voice ascending,
Sweet Mary, hear our pray’r.
Behold earth’s blossoms springing
In beauteous form and hue.
All nature gladly bringing
Her sweetest charms to you.
We’ll gather fresh, bright flowers,
To bind our fair Queen’s brow;
From pure and verdant bowers,
We haste to crown you now
Hail Virgin, dearest Mary!
Our lovely Queen of May!
O spotless, blessed Lady,
Our lovely Queen of May.
And now, our blessed Mother,
Smile on our festal day;
Accept our wreath of flowers,
And be our Queen of May.

There are a lot of hymns to Mary in the Catholic church that certainly do point to adoration.

People who leave the Church do not understand why it is the true Church. They are often persuaded by protestants because of this. Once they have joined another religion they become emotionally attached and very hard to convince that they have made a wrong choice; so they need to be convinced of the truth of the Catholic Church as a defence against those that are trying to convert them with spurious arguments based on ignorance of the Church.
Lighthouse Catholic Media (http://www.lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store)have have a wonderful collection of CDs most of which are available for only $US3 posted or $US2 downloaded. Under the category “Defending the Faith” there are several conversion stories with solid explanations of the truth of Catholicism. These Cds need to reach people before they leave the Church - while they are still open-minded, before they become brainwashed. I have purchased many CDs and can strongly recommend them.

As an Evangelical honestly searching for Truth, I can attest to this article’s point that those considering the Catholic Church tend to wrestle hard with the theological/philosophical aspects, then make a deliberate decision one way or the other.  On the other hand, judging from discussions I’ve had with friends who have left the Catholic Church, it is apparent that they did so not because of any real theological issue with Church teaching, but out of an emotional response.  Unfortunately, they don’t tend to truly understand Church teaching, even though they’ve grown up surrounded by Catholics and have gone to Catholic schools.  Even as an Evangelical, I would urge Catholics to please teach!  Give a good witness to the hope that is within you!  Share with your children and friends.  The beauty of Catholic theology and especially the Eucharist astound me!  My little world is being shaken for what I’m finding…Please do not become complacent in your faith!

Michael Lovett writes “People who leave the Church do not understand why it is the true Church. They are often persuaded by protestants because of this.”
I suppose this could be true for some but not all. Just look at the scandals and the unwillingness of catholics to follow church teaching on birth control.
I also think people get tired and less committed seeing that so many don’t go to church and so why do it.

Faithful
Perhaps this is another matter of semantics but to a Catholic “praise” and “adoration” are two different things.
In the hymn you cited there isn’t any indication of “adoration”-yes plenty of praise as a child praises his/her mother as the most beautiful, best mother in the world. That is how we consider Mary- after all if out of the billions of women who have lived or will live, God Almighty choose her to bear and to raise his Son- she must be special. I cannot imagine Jesus disapproving of us praising his mother ! When we call Mary Queen , we are referring to her role as Queen Mother - after all she is the mother of the King of Kings.
Now I can understand if someone disagrees with my Catholic beliefs but I cannot understand a nonCatholic presuming to know better than I what those beliefs are. Catholics praise, honor and ask Mary for her prayers but we only adore God- Father , Son and Holy Spirit.  Those are the facts of Catholic belief so please do not tell me that I don’t believe what I do.  I would not presume to tell you what you believe.  Pax Vobiscum

God’s will be done. Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. It has always been the case. The Church has been on the verge of being destroyed it’s entire history. By scandals from within, and hatred. But it never is. Why - because the worlds power is strictly limited. God is and will always be in control.

If people leave the Church, God moves on. He leaves those to their free will, and in some cases their bitterness and hatred. Because they choose to focus on the sins of weak and scandalous people, and in turn use them in an attempt to discredit and convict others. And, they succeed by fooling some. Their earthly punishment if they and they fool don’t repent—they get to miss out on the whole point of life: Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, His Mass, His Holy Sacraments, the Holy Souls, and the Communion of Saints led by the Blessed Virgin Mary.

God moves on - he leaves the front and back door open for those leaving and wanting to come back, and simply restocks the shelves. Instead, He Quietly and Humbly replaces them with new believers who focus on what counts - His Son. They then come to a faith where loyal Catholics are shaken, but too strong to abandon Jesus and His Sacraments. And, He strengthens and rejuvenates His Church once again.

His will be done..

All religions in the world were founded by mere human beings, except one -The Catholic Church.  And if salvation is of utmost important to me, I would rather embark my soul upon the True Faith. And hence, I returned to the Faith.

For people who want to know more about Mary, try reading the writings of the great Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus.  I became a Mama’s boy after that.

I love you all.

Peace in Christ,
Alberto

Newnews writes-“Faithful
Perhaps this is another matter of semantics but to a Catholic “praise” and “adoration” are two different things.”
I think we both understand what praise and adoration is when we see it. I don’t have to be a catholic to understand catholic theology nor do you need to be a protestant to understand protestant theology. No child should speak of their parents like this.
Secondly, prayer is by its nature communication with the unseen and the only communication that Scripture endorses is with God and no other.

Faithful,

You do not or will not understand Catholic theology and as I am not able to convince you otherwise I will say goodnight . When I say my prayers I will ask Mary to pray for both of us. 

Pax Vobiscum

MM,

The main reason is because Mary was not divine, both man and God as was Jesus.  And, since we are all human, including Mary, our path to salvation must be through Jesus. That is why all that died from the beginning of human time up until Jesus’ death were not able to go to Heaven. Until the Divine Jesus Suffered and Died for all of our sins - then and now, as God planned. Only God could do this to overcome sin and open the gates of Heaven giving all people a chance for salvation.

The second reason I believe is because Mary was just plain humble. She knew she had favor with God by receiving His powerful Grace and after what the Angel Gabriel said to her at the Annunciation but she never took it for granted. One can see this in her example all throughout the Gospels.

Catholics pray for the intercession of Mary, because she is favored by God’s grace. This is a point which is often misunderstood. Catholics praying to Mary place their prayers in her hands for intercession before God - for who knows better what to do with them. And, if prayers are said with tremendous fervor, sincerety, and out of love, and then presented to them to God as a rose, how often will God refuse her humble request?

Recall the Miracle at Cana when Jesus changed water into wine. Who was it that asked Jesus to do something when the wine was running low? Jesus didn’t seem to be quite ready to do it (“Woman, it is not yet my time”), but He honored her anyway and did what she asked, did He not?

And, remember that Jesus gave Mary to all of us at the foot of the cross before He died. “Woman, behold thy son. John, behold thy Mother”. She belongs to all of us. It is correct, Catholics don’t pray to Her as God because she is not God - they pray to her to intercede on our behalf or for others for the Mercy of God.

Honor your father and mother.

Mary is Jesus’ mother.
Jesus is our brother.
Therefore Mary is our mother.

Honor your mother.

John: Protestants drove me back into the Catholic Church. When I was in the US army one earlier than usual morning in 72 I went to the mess hall for breakfast and waiting in line there were a group of 4 in front of me when one of them posed the usual question ‘are you saved’. I when questioned like to know what they really mean and where they come from. That started me on a quest to understand better and more deeply. Providentially I ran into the prayer to The Holy Spirit, I pray that prayer practically every day and before reading the Holy Scriptures or any spiritual readings. Needless to say I ran right smack into Purgatory. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it’s a duck. The first one was were Jesus says to “make peace with your brother on the way to the judge otherwise he will hand you over to the jailer and I assure you will not get out unless you pay to the last penny. I noticed that there was no mention of where the fire is never extinguished nor the worm never dies. 2nd the servant who owed his master a huge sum but after being forgiven the whole amount he promptly after seeing a fellow servant who owed him a pittance grabbed him and handed him over to the jailer. When the master found out he handed him over to the torturers here Jesus strongly says to them ” My Heavenly Father will do with you likewise unless you make peace with your brother from the heart! 3rd ST Paul talking on the day of The Lord that it will come like fire putting to test all of man’s works and if his work stands he will receive his reward but if it burns he will lose his reward, he himself will be saved but as one fleeing through fire. Purgatory is mercy for “nothing unclean shall see God”. Notice also that these three points also highlights what Jesus said “that to whom much is given much will be required from. These groups represent 1-everyday people who have little power, 2-those who exercise power over others and 3- those who should know better but insist on doing it their way. Pray for your priests and other religious leaders. I’m grateful for Purgatory for myself and for others beginning with my loved ones. Thanks be to God!

Everybody on this thread is talking about catechesis and theology. I have yet to see anybody address God’s love. Do you know why I find fault increasingly with Catholicism? The love of the Triune God isn’t there. I’m not talking about something sentimental, treacly or goopy. I’m talking about something that reflects the fundamental nature of God’s character and integrity. So many Catholics are complacent, including, may I say, many on this thread. They’re so satisfied with going to church, receiving the sacraments or basking in their own theological smugness. Those aren’t solely Catholic problems, of course; they afflict institutionalized Christianity as a whole. But how does all this intellectuality help somebody deal with intense emotional and spiritual pain? How can people who display some of the smugness that I’ve seen on this and other Catholic sites show any empathy toward the brokenhearted…especially those who aren’t the poor, unborn children or immigrants, the Church’s approved victimization groups? Do you think a holy, righteous, loving God truly gives a tinker’s damn about your smugness and sense of theological superiority? If you do, then just look at the Pharisees and Sadducees, and how the Messiah viewed them. What I see on this and so many other threads, both Catholic and non, is Christianity without God, let alone without Christ.

Repent, people. Repent and turn to Christ while there is still time. Forget the idols of self-satisfaction that dominate the current age.

Just a question for ‘Faithful’. Do you know the meaning of Faith? How faithful ARE YOU?

What is happening is historical and the grace along with the persecution will soon be clear. Christendom (now erroneously called the western world) is almost completely destroyed because of two massive death blows. 1: Protestantism 2:The errors of the French Revolution. This is where we get the dictatorship of relativism. The demonic errors of Freemasonry such as religious pluralism are dead now all of them are dead. The death of Protestantism is also happening Thank God!Christendom will be attacked and she will rise not because our people are so great we are not great. She will rise because God is faithful. Jesus is Lord! Immaculate heart of Mary Pray for us!

Fatihful.

Why don’t you pay a visit to the site below ?. There are many interesting items which may increase your knowledge.

http://www.christian-miracles.com/arosarymiracle.htm

Angry Catholic,

So many Catholics are complacent, including, may I say, many on this thread.

How could you possibly know what any of us on this thread think, believe or feel?  All we have done is try to defend our Faith.  Claims were made that were simply not true.  Theological claims.  Hence theological defenses.

Just as someone earlier claimed that we do not read scripture and they were wrong, you are wrong when you say that we have no deep relationship with God.

If you doubt this, I have four words for you.  “Theology of the Body”.

I am madly, passionately, insanely in love with Our Lord.  I am crazy about the idea of sharing my body with His, with becoming one body, His bride, and sharing myself in the most intimate ways that any couple in love do.  I am in awe of this Lover.  I want to be with Him all the time.  I want to share that Love with everyone I meet.  I want to whisper in His ear, and sit with Him in silence, to laugh at His jokes and “hold His hand” watching a sunset.  I am overwhelmed by His goodness, both to me personally and in His mind boggling creation. 

St. John of the Cross expressed it well while describing the Dark Night of the Soul…

O guiding night!
O night more lovely than the dawn!
O night that has united
the Lover with his beloved,
transforming the beloved in her Lover.

6. Upon my flowering breast
which I kept wholly for him alone,
there he lay sleeping,
and I caressing him
there in a breeze from the fanning cedars.

7. When the breeze blew from the turret,
as I parted his hair,
it wounded my neck
with its gentle hand,
suspending all my senses.

8. I abandoned and forgot myself,
laying my face on my Beloved;
all things ceased; I went out from myself,
leaving my cares
forgotten among the lilies.

All you had to do was ask…  ;)

I’ve heard many a Catholic state that they left the Church for many reasons, mostly because of money, “the priest is always asking for money”, issues below the belt dealing with premarital sex, contraception, abortion, etc…, and most often because some anti Catholic got hold of ‘em and questioned them and because they were poorly catechized were led right out of the Church, never fully knowing what they were leaving…I think that this is, in large part, the reason we are seeing an increase in home schooling in Catholic families…no longer are we leaving the teaching of the Faith to the “experts”...while I am sure there are many good CCD programs/teachers out there, I would venture to say that this is not the case in many churches…

anton writes- “Just a question for ‘Faithful’. Do you know the meaning of Faith? How faithful ARE YOU?”
Here is a definition of faith from a Greek lexicon of the NT- In Heb. 11:1, “?faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen?” means that persuasion is not the outcome of imagination but is based on fact, such as the reality of the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15), and as such it becomes the basis of realistic hope.

Notice that our faith is to be based on fact and not imagination.

Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

joechia writes “Fatihful.

Why don’t you pay a visit to the site below ?. There are many interesting items which may increase your knowledge.

http://www.christian-miracles.com/arosarymiracle.htm”

Thanks for the site. I checked some things out and came across this prayer to Mary:
” Our Lady, Queen of Angels

August Queen of Heaven!
Sovereign Mistress of the angels!
Thou who from the beginning
hast received from God
the power and mission to crush
the head of Satan,
we humbly beseech thee
to send thy holy Legions,
that, under thy command
and by thy power,
they may pursue the evil spirits,
encounter them on every side,
resist their bold attacks
and drive them hence into the abyss of eternal woe.
Amen”

This prayer contains a lot of theology. Since the Catholic church claims to base its doctrines (theology) on Scripture, where does it say in Scripture that she is “Sovereign Mistress of the angels” and that she has power to crush the head of satan?

Its these kinds of prayers and doctrines in the Catholic church that i wonder how many ex-protestants are aware of.

Faithful,

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, in part, about fatih..  There is much, much more.  Look it up on-line.  Peace

Faith is a grace

153 When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come “from flesh and blood”, but from “my Father who is in heaven”.24 Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. “Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and ‘makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.‘“25

Faith is a human act

154 Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed is contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason. Even in human relations it is not contrary to our dignity to believe what other persons tell us about themselves and their intentions, or to trust their promises (for example, when a man and a woman marry) to share a communion of life with one another. If this is so, still less is it contrary to our dignity to “yield by faith the full submission of… intellect and will to God who reveals”,26 and to share in an interior communion with him.

155 In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: “Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.“27

Faith and understanding

156 What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived”.28 So “that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit.“29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church’s growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability “are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all”; they are “motives of credibility” (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind”.30

157 Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but “the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives.“31 “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.“32

158 “Faith seeks understanding”:33 it is intrinsic to faith that a believer desires to know better the One in whom he has put his faith, and to understand better what He has revealed; a more penetrating knowledge will in turn call forth a greater faith, increasingly set afire by love. The grace of faith opens “the eyes of your hearts"34 to a lively understanding of the contents of Revelation: that is, of the totality of God’s plan and the mysteries of faith, of their connection with each other and with Christ, the center of the revealed mystery. “The same Holy Spirit constantly perfects faith by his gifts, so that Revelation may be more and more profoundly understood.“35 In the words of St. Augustine, “I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe.“36

159 Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth.“37 “Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.“38

The freedom of faith

160 To be human, “man’s response to God by faith must be free, and… therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act.“39 “God calls men to serve him in spirit and in truth. Consequently they are bound to him in conscience, but not coerced. . . This fact received its fullest manifestation in Christ Jesus.“40 Indeed, Christ invited people to faith and conversion, but never coerced them. “For he bore witness to the truth but refused to use force to impose it on those who spoke against it. His kingdom… grows by the love with which Christ, lifted up on the cross, draws men to himself.“41

The necessity of faith

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 “Since “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.‘“43

Perseverance in faith

162 Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: “Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.“44 To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith;45 it must be “working through charity,” abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.46

Faith - the beginning of eternal life

163 Faith makes us taste in advance the light of the beatific vision, the goal of our journey here below. Then we shall see God “face to face”, “as he is”.47 So faith is already the beginning of eternal life:

When we contemplate the blessings of faith even now, as if gazing at a reflection in a mirror, it is as if we already possessed the wonderful things which our faith assures us we shall one day enjoy.48
164 Now, however, “we walk by faith, not by sight”;49 we perceive God as “in a mirror, dimly” and only “in part”.50 Even though enlightened by him in whom it believes, faith is often lived in darkness and can be put to the test. The world we live in often seems very far from the one promised us by faith. Our experiences of evil and suffering, injustice and death, seem to contradict the Good News; they can shake our faith and become a temptation against it.

165 It is then we must turn to the witnesses of faith: to Abraham, who “in hope… believed against hope”;51 to the Virgin Mary, who, in “her pilgrimage of faith”, walked into the “night of faith"52 in sharing the darkness of her son’s suffering and death; and to so many others: “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith.“53

Faithful,

I forgot to include the citation footnotes.  Here they are!
1 DV 2; cf. Col 1:15; I Tim 1:17; Ex 33:11; Jn 15:14-15; Bar 3:38 (Vulg.).
2 Cf. DV 5.
3 Cf. Rom 1:5; 16:26.
4 Heb 11:8; cf. Gen 12:1-4.
5 Cf. Gen 23:4.
6 Cf. Heb 11:17.
7 Heb 11:1.
8 Rom 4:3; cf. Gen 15:6.
9 Rom 4:11, 18; 4:20; cf. Gen 15:5.
10 Heb 11:2, 39.
11 Heb 11:40; 12:2.
12 Lk 1:37-38; cf. Gen 18:14.
13 Lk 1:45.
14 Cf. Lk 1:48.
15 Cf. Lk 2:35.
16 2 Tim 1:12.
17 Cf. Jer 17:5-6; Pss 40:5; 146:3-4.
18 Mk 1:11; cf. 9:7.
19 Jn 14:1.
20 Jn 1:18.
21 Jn 6:46; cf. Mt 11:27.
22 I Cor 12:3.
23 I Cor 2:10-11.
24 Mt 16:17; cf. Gal 1:15; Mt 11:25.
25 DV 5; cf. DS 377; 3010.
26 Dei Filius: 3: DS 3008.
27 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 2, 9; cf Dei Filius 3; DS 3010.
28 Dei Filius: 3 DS 3008.
29 Dei Filius: 3 DS 3009.
30 Dei Filius: 3: DS 3008-3010; Cf. Mk 16 20; Heb 2:4.
31 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II 171, 5, obj. 3.
32 John Henry Cardinal Newman, Apologia pro vita sua (London Longman, 1878) 239.
33 St. Anselm, Prosl. prooem. PL 153 225A.
34 Eph 1:18.
35 DV 5.
36 St. Augustine, Sermo 43, 7, 9: PL 38, 257-258.
37 Dei Filius 4: DS 3017.
38 GS 36 # 1.
39 DH 10; cf. CIC, can. 748 # 2.
40 DH 11.
41 DH 11; cf. Jn 18:37; 12:32.
42 Cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:36; 6:40 et al.
43 Dei Filius 3: DS 3012; cf. Mt 10:22; 24: 13 and Heb 11:6; Council of Trent: DS 1532.
44 1 Tim 1:18-19.
45 Cf. Mk 9:24; Lk 17:5; 22:32.
46 Gal 5:6; Rom 15:13; cf. Jas 2:14-26.
47 1 Cor 13:12; I Jn 3:2.
48 St. Basil De Spiritu Sancto 15, 36: PG 32, 132; cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 4, 1.
49 2 Cor 5:7.
50 l Cor 13:12.
51 Rom 4:18.
52 LG 58; John Paul II, RMat 18.
53 Heb 12:1-2. Article 2.

ToddC
Thanks for the quotes. Do you think faith must be based on facts?

I think that if truth was the only criteria, everyone would be Catholic.  But the reality is most people are not intellectuals, philosophers, or theologians, and choose their religion according to the wrong reasons about 90% of the time.  People base their decision on the pastor, the church community, their family religion, what the society believes, emotional attachments, bad experiences they have had, what they want to be true, and numerous other myriad reasons.  If one studies religion logically with an open-mind, humility and docility the only choice staring you in the face is Catholicism.  But how many people are looking and willing to put in the work to find truth in religion?
I believe those leaving Catholicism are almost all leaving for wrong reasons, and those coming in very often are for the right reasons.

How Can Catholicism Be True When Catholics Are So Dead?
GARY HOGE
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0103.html

Faithful,

The Catholic Church DOES base her teachings on scripture.  But not on scripture ALONE.  She places equal value on Tradition.

As I’ve asked before…what scripture did Paul use?  His followers?

Mary is the New Eve.  Eve and the Serpent had a go.

    I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”
16   Gen 3:15

The woman’s offspring is Our Lord and the woman is the mother of that offspring.  Our Lady.  Mary.  Hence, Mary crushing the head of the serpent.  It’s imagery.  It’s figurative.  She gave us Jesus and Jesus conquered evil forever.  This is the power that she had.  The power to conceive and give birth to the savior of the world. 

We call her the Queen of Heaven because Jesus is the King.  The King’s Mother is the Queen.  Again, look to Bathsheba and David for a scriptural reference.

Bathsheba sat in the throne at her son’s right hand.  Mary sits in the Throne at HER Son’s right hand.  The Queen.  The most highly favored human being that God ever created.  ALL of heaven honors her. She is the Queen of Heaven, hence she is the Queen of all that exists in heaven, including the angels.

Faithful,

I think you’d like the book by Scott Hahn that tells of his conversion from Presbyterian to Catholic.  He was not only protestant, he was vehemently ANTI-Catholic.  He fought the Church for years.  It was after years of studying scripture to prove the Catholic Church was wrong that he came to believe she was right…The man knows his stuff and comes to the table with a phenomenal understanding of scripture and the Catholic Church.

He goes through each and every dogmatic problem that protestants come up against.

The real question is, If Peter is not the authority that Jesus left on earth to guard and guide His Church/Bride with the help of the Holy Spirit, then on whose authority do you base your own understanding of scripture?  33,000 different denominations and NONE of them can agree on what the Scriptures say.  It’s every man for himself.  No authority.  No final word.  It takes a lifetime to study scripture.  Most of us haven’t got the intelligence let alone time to do it correctly.  But there ARE those that do and have…they are the Church Fathers and our Popes.  The Catholic Church can rest in comfort knowing that the greatest minds in the world are leading us. 

We have been guaranteed that the “Gates of Hell will not prevail”...that the teaching authority of the Church, on matters of morals and dogma can NOT make a mistake.  In 2,000 years, the mass is virtually unchanged, and the teachings of the Church, not the customs, but the teachings, have remained intact and undefiled.

Faithful, I’m going to close for now. It was nice chatting with you as you seem like a very nice person. I use to be a Protestant so I know where you’re coming from. If you’d ever like to discuss one on one feel free to email me. God bless. Dawn, MimiKookii@gmail.com

Angry Catholic - you stated:

“I’m talking about something that reflects the fundamental nature of God’s character and integrity. So many Catholics are complacent, including, may I say, many on this thread. They’re so satisfied with going to church, receiving the sacraments or basking in their own theological smugness. Those aren’t solely Catholic problems, of course; they afflict institutionalized Christianity as a whole.”

I believe you also mentioned a very important point - perhaps the most important of all, God’s Love.

Your points are excellent. We Catholics are often smug by just going to Church. Receiving some of the sacraments, though not all. Criticizing things that are wrong and not helping others in need. This is a huge mistake. We are supposed to mix Faith in God with Our Lord’s actions of helping others. And, I certainly am one that is still working on my imperfections, I’m afraid it will be a struggle all my life.

I think the first step in doing as Christ did however, is following His Example. To listen closely to His Words, and follow what they say in our daily lives. “Love your God with your whole heart, mind, soul, and body and love your neighbor as yourself”. The Mass, Sacraments, and daily prayer help us lay the foundation for the first commandment. They put us in the framework of Jesus spiritually, give us the strength to finally recognize that in order to Love God fully, we must have this first. Then, God’s Love and Wisdom goes on to teach us that the job is only half done.

Love our neighbor – how do we do this? Lots of ways, a kind word to a son, or daughter, a wife, a stranger, or very neighbor. Helping the poor financially or donating our time. Spending an hour or 2 before the Blessed Sacrament each week, remembering or praying for others. Donating to charties that help pregnant women. Attending Masses in remembrance of the unborn lost to abortion, saying the Rosary sincerely when witnessing outside abortion clinics, praying for the conversion of others, praying for the Holy Souls or offering sacrifices for them. How does one possibly begin to approach these with without faith in God and His Sacraments? To recognize that through our prayers and sacrafices we can help one of our dead relatives, or anyone, make it to Heaven if they are held in purgatory? Knowing that whenever they died doesn’t really matter. For God’s love knew the sincere prayers for them would come from us and counted on them. To help those He loves make it to their final destination of Heaven. Is this not faith?

This is mixing of faith, to match Our Lord’s dual commandments. It is the essence of God’s Love that we all are so fervently in search of.

I agree that not following both commandments do impact Christianity. They dilute it with hypocrisy, and result in God’s graces and love drying up. But, we are called to meet both requirements and we are to do our best. We are human beings, all imperfect. But God calls us to be perfect, and we can’t be if following one of Jesus’ commandments and not the other. Faith, without works, is not faith.

The true meaning of loving God is to follow Jesus’ example. He told us what to do in a very simple way with His Commandments. But we often think it has to be a lot more than that. It is, of course, because it is not easy. But consider what we are all yearning to achieve, eternal salvation. How could it be easy?

You are right on about carrying on as Scribes and Pharisees. I think we are all guilty of that, and we have to be careful that we don’t come across as talking talk down to others when discussing religion. Or make them feel they are less in the eyes of God.  Overall smugness is a trap easily laid and not alone for long.

If I came across this way in previous posts, I apologize to you. It was not my intention. My intention was to point out on this post how easily we can put aside one of Jesus’ commandments by only giving small effort to the other, or worse, neither. And, you are correct, guilty as charged. But, I’m still working on it. Because God still gives us life and affirms there is another day to try.

God Bless.

Faithful,

I’ve never thought of faith in that way.  Certain truths or facts have to have been revealed to us in order for us to believe.  God started with Adam and Eve, then to Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and finally all of us.  Without God’s revelation faith wouldn’t exist.  As He progressed from revealing Himself to first a couple (Adam and Eve), then a family (Noah), then a tribe (Abraham), then a nation (Jacob/Israel), then a kingdom (David) and then to the world through His son Jesus Christ.  Without this progression we wouldn’t have been able to accept all of His truth (or facts).  As we progressed in our faith as God’s children, God gave us more and more to believe.  Our faith is based on what God has revealed to us.  If you want to call that revelation fact, then so be it.

But I have to ask you, Faithful, do you think God stopped His revelation to us after Christ’s life, death and resurrection?  Yes, Jesus is our true Redeemer, no doubt.  But I find it hard to believe that God just said to Himself at that point, “There, that’s done.  Now what should I do?”  No.  We are still prone to concupiscence.  Otherwise Chrsits wouldn’t need to come again, would he?  As I’ve said before I, and just shy of a billion others, believe that Christ laid down his Church through Peter and the rest of the apostles.  It is through the Church that God, through the Holy Spirit, continued to reveal himself to us.  He still does.  Pick up a copy of “Theology of the Body” by Christopher West or a number of other writers.  It reveals God’s plan for our sexuality, as expressed by Pope john Paul II, all evidenced through scripture.  It is by His revelation that we have this and other doctrines not found in the bible.  Our Marian doctrine, purgatory, etc. have developed through a lot of prayer, study, spiritual reflection and openness to the Truth. I firmly believe these Truths are Divine Revelation.

God’s Word, the bible, needs to be taught to us.  Jesus commanded his disciples to do so before the Ascension.  If interpretation weren’t necessary, we wouldn’t have 20,000 different Christian religions with just as many, if not more, doctrines and theologies. We would all believe and agree and there would be no conflict.  The beauty of it is that Christ continues, to this day, to reveal himself to us, converting non-believers into believers,  turning hearts toward God, and spirits toward the needs of our fellow man.

I’m not sure if this answers your question.  But I think if we believe the Truth, then that is faith.

May I make an observation, Faithful?  It seems the NT Greek lexicon you use is a somewhat dry, lifeless, mechanical interpretation of a language so essential to our Christianity.  Also, we must be careful when using it, because there are many times the Greek words used in the original books of the bible had already been translated from ancient Hebrew or Aramaic.  I think that is why there is a difference in our views on the meaning of “full of grace”.  Remember, Jesus and his followers didn’t speak Greek.  They spoke Aramaic.  If you do some research online you will discover the Church and other theologians have learned a great deal more about this ancient language since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  I think you will find new, more accurate translations forthcoming.

One last thing: Protestants tend to say, “Where’s that in the bible?”  Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?  If so, where’s that in the bible?  God bless!

By the way, Thank you for the respectful, Christ centered dialogue!

For the Eastern Orthodox guy and the Anglican guy…

First off my husband and I went to an Orthodox church (actually quite a few during Lent) and almost converted except…you all don’t believe in Hell anymore. I say “anymore” because the scriptures and the Church Fathers CLEARLY taught a place of everlasting torment with fire and separation from God. Now I realize God is everpresent but that doesn’t mean he’s in Hell with the damned for eternity. Eastern Orthodoxy believes that Hell is merely a state of being, that all the damned are in the presence of God just as the redeemed for eternity and his “love” burns them that’s it. That’s the Eastern Orthodox view of hell as first put out by Isaac the Syrian who they claim to be a Saint. This is bold heresy!!! You can have an old liturgy and all that but if you deny a FOUNDATIONAL Christian doctrine like Hell you cease to be Christian in my opinion, not only that it attacks the nature and character of God himself that the wicked aren’t punished really they are just “loved” (eye roll)what kind of loving just God doesn’t punish evil? Short answer one that isn’t really loving or just. Eastern Orthodox are hardly united either, ROCOR still hates Moscow even though they are “in communion”, the Serbs can’t stand the wishy washy Greeks or Antiochians here in America. It’s a cultural divide all over…there is nothing to unite them really. The Greeks/Antiochians/OCA/ROCOR all have churches/bishops in the same areas…why not one bishop like the Catholic Church… You try to sell Orthodoxy like it’s “the church” and don’t mention these things…hmmm

As for the Anglican fella, I just left the Anglican Church literally two weeks ago because I’ve had enough of the splitting back biting (cont. movement) and the heresy/filth of the main variety. Not only that Anglicans can’t seem to speak out as a whole (they are splintered beyond reason) on birth control because they are the FIRST church to approve of it in 1930’s and the rest of protestantism followed suit. Now they don’t care about abortion, divorce and remarriage-they never really cared about this one (Henry VIII???!!). NO THANKS.

So why should a person leave the Catholic Church for either of these two???

mk writes -“Faithful, The Catholic Church DOES base her teachings on scripture.  But not on scripture ALONE.  She places equal value on Tradition.”
I agree with your assessment. Since we know what Scripture says we should look at what Tradition is and what it is. Is Tradition inspired-inerrant? Do you you have a couple of examples of what Tradition is?

To those who have converted and to Roman Catholics I have a question: What must a catholic believe and do to have eternal life?

Faithful,

We must accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savio *AND* do as as he commanded: “to love God with all our heart, mind, body and strength; and to love one another as [He] has loved [us].”  Everything else we do as Catholics we do to help us fulfill the Greatest Commandment, understand God’s plan for us and live our lives according to His will.  Remember, Christ came not to abolish the law and the commandments, but to fulfill them.

Seeking a response from a Protestant Christian.

The Catholic Church has on public display in Europe and elsewhere men and women whose bodies remain incorrupt though having been dead for many years, even several centuries.

What do you think of such a phenomenon found only in the Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church is truly the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit, mandated by the Father and founded by Christ Himself.

The Church is true despite the failings of its members over the centuries.  Remember that Christ had Judas too, but despite him, you cannot deny the teachings of Christ. 

If Martin Luther declared that parts of the Bible and most of the Sacraments were no longer valid, who am I going to believe…him or the Apostolic Fathers who were in contact with the apostles themselves.  No Contest.

I love all my Protestant brothers and sisters and others of differnt faiths or no faith.

Peace.
Alberto

“Angry Catholic”, in both your posts (Fri. 8/6 12:09AM and Sat. 8/7 at 2:31AM) you hit the nail on the head about the Catholic Church, and it is why I have been bothered by the MINDSET it has, and for so long!!

My two posts are both on Fri. 8/6 at 7:29PM and 7:36PM - to them, I add:

1) I used to go to Mass daily too, and for many years.  While the Bible is read at Mass, it is not PREACHED - the clergy does not bring Mass-goers closer to God.  We are not taught WHO God is, in terms of His character, as “Angry Catholic” so briliantly points out.

2) Yes - the Church we have today has been “tweaked” beyond recognition in many places, and what is taught is wrong.

The Deposit of Faith is like if today, we took 3 things down to a bank safe deposit box - and we go back in 10 years to retrieve them.  We should find those 3 items, intact, not 2 items or 4 items or 3 damaged and distorted items. 

The Roman Catholic Church has distorted much of what Jesus left us, and handed down through the Apostles.  In fact, if St. Peter wanted to be a priest today, no seminary would accept him.  He would have to be a Protestant minister, which is why I can’t understand how any intelligent Evangelical could convert to the Catholic church.

I am grateful for this forum, and for the opportunity to honestly ask this question

I forgot to weigh in on “FAITH” -  I recently heard a great thing:
Forsaking ALL, I Trust Him = that is faith, at its core.

... and for “GRACE” -

God’s Riches, At Christ’s Expense” (Spiritual riches, of course, and when we, as sinners, deserve nothing.)

Regarding Mary,

      It is written:

        Son behold your mother.

      It also written:

        Honor your father and mother.

I obey Jesus by praying to Mary. Mary is my mother and I honor her with my prayers. HAIL MARY!VIRGIN OF VIRGINS!HIGHEST AMONG THE SAINTS. Pray for me a lowly sinner.

Cradle Catholic,

I am sorry that you have not heard the Bible preached at your daily and weekly masses.  I have encountered the exact opposite.  The only times I have not heard the Scripture readings discussed have been the annual review of parish finances and on certain weekday celebrations of saints, such as John Vianney this past week, when the saint’s walk of faith is discussed.  Other than that, I almost always come away from mass with a nugget or two from Scripture to consider.  As a matter of fact, the retired priest in our parish sometimes annoys the weekday mass goers because he’ll get going on the readings and spend up to twenty minutes discussing them.  The ones who are irritated are those who have to bolt our the door to head to work as soon as mass is finished.  And in the course of opening our hearts to the Word in Scripture, the nature of God and how we should relate to Him is covered.

As for the church being tweaked beyond recognition, I could only agree in terms of clown masses and other liturgical abuses.  Other than that, I don’t know how you would know that the deposit of faith has been grossly changed.  And in terms of “I can’t understand how any intelligent Evangelical could convert to the Catholic church,” check the writings and testimonies of Scott Hahn, Thomas Howard, Marcus Grodi, Alex Jones, Steve Ray, Tim Staples and the many other Protestant ministers who, through study and prayer, have found their way home.  Bring your concerns to the forums at www.catholic.com.  Perhaps your questions and comments have already been discussed and/or answered.

If you truly are a cradle Catholic, I’ll bet you are availing yourself of time in Eucharistic Adoration.  Bring these questions you have to the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and listen.  Other than that, I agree that this is a good forum.  I wish you well.

God bless,
Dan

I returned to the Catholic church 2 years ago, and now have a vigor and faith that I never had before, even though I was Charismatic. Having the gifts didn’t give me depth, but did get me thru the hard times in life. Every protestant church I tried was missing something. It took me 20 years to realize that the something missing was the Spirit of God Himself—not to mention the Eucharist. Certainly a lot of Catholics that leave, come home—and come home the better for it. Protestantism is shallow and empty, and generally without any true prayer life(except praying for one’s self, of course). Holy cards were one of the vehicles of my reconversion—the depth of faith/meaning of those prayers vs. those I knew as a Protestant was shocking/enlightening. I could go on forever, but won’t. I believe that all Catholics will return if they are truly seeking God.

People who really know Scripture don’t cross the Tiber. It’s a man-made religion with man-made definitions. God in the flesh, Jesus Christ, warned 3 times in Matthew 15 about worshipping God in vain because of your tradition. Get into the Scripture.

Cradle Catholic,

I used to go to Mass daily too, and for many years.  While the Bible is read at Mass, it is not PREACHED - the clergy does not bring Mass-goers closer to God.  We are not taught WHO God is, in terms of His character, as “Angry Catholic” so briliantly points out.

I read/heard someone once describe the difference between a homily and a sermon.  I’m paraphrasing of course.  If I can’t remember who said it, I certainly won’t remember the exact words…

A sermon is when you take an idea and use scripture to back it up.  Like say the preacher was talking about marriage.  He would pull several or more scripture passages to prove his thoughts.

A homily however, is when you take a scripture passage and break it into bite size pieces that can be easily digested.  So whereas we take Jesus/The Word made Flesh in the form of Bread and break it during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, we take Jesus/The Word/Scripture and break it during the Liturgy of the Word.

Perhaps you are used to the first type of preaching and this is why a Catholic Homily doesn’t ring true to you?

Faithful,

Note that this passage does not say “He who reads you…”  It says “hear you”...before scripture was even collected and written, oral tradition is what believers followed.  They had no other choice.  That tradition was sanctioned by Jesus Himself when He said:
“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).

Here is what Catholic Answers has to say:

In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

And here is what Paul has to say:

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

(same source)...I hate that you can’t space between paragraphs on here!

ToddC writes “...But I have to ask you, Faithful, do you think God stopped His revelation to us after Christ’s life, death and resurrection?  Yes, Jesus is our true Redeemer, no doubt.  But I find it hard to believe that God just said to Himself at that point, “There, that’s done.  Now what should I do?”  No…”
If new revelation is still being given then what you have is new Scripture because that is exactly what new revelation is. Has this new revelation been added to your Bible and does it carry the same authority as the inspired-inerrant Word of God?
Many claim to possess new revelations that are not contained in Scripture but that does not mean its true. Its certainly apostolic and binding.

And here is yet another great source for scriptural references to Sacred Tradition…

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html

We view the Old Testament/Old Law as basically a set of “rules” to be lived out practically…it’s very “physical”...but when Jesus came and gave us a New Law, He raised the bar.  It’s like the Old Testament on steroids.  It’s no longer confined to the physical world.  It now transcends the physical world and becomes spiritual…one step closer to heaven.

Everything in the Old Testament is repeated, with a spiritual bent.  Eve/Mary…the Word/The Word made Flesh…the Ark of the Covenant/Mary…Manna/The Eucharist…

If it’s in the New Testament, it’s also in the Old.  Only in a physical way.

The Word is the The Word…not the Written Word but whatever Jesus said or did, written or unwritten.  We do follow the Word, we just follow ALL of the word.  Sometimes the Word is neither written, nor oral.  It just is.  It’s very hard to put into words…

Here is another article that’s worth reading…

http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/insights-tradition.htm

Terry writes “Seeking a response from a Protestant Christian.

The Catholic Church has on public display in Europe and elsewhere men and women whose bodies remain incorrupt though having been dead for many years, even several centuries.

What do you think of such a phenomenon found only in the Catholic Church?”

Strange. What message is this supposed to convey? Did the Lord Christ or any of His apostles teach on this?

MM writes “....Catholics pray for the intercession of Mary, because she is favored by God’s grace. This is a point which is often misunderstood. Catholics praying to Mary place their prayers in her hands for intercession before God - for who knows better what to do with them. And, if prayers are said with tremendous fervor, sincerety, and out of love, and then presented to them to God as a rose, how often will God refuse her humble request?...”

Where did the Lord Jesus or His apostles teach that you should place your prayers in her hands for intercession before God?

mk writes- “Here is what Catholic Answers has to say:
In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.”

Lets focus on one sentence that needs to be clarified-“Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching.”

What oral teachings did the apostles pass on that is not in Scripture? Do you have a couple of examples of this?

Faithful writes: “If new revelation is still being given then what you have is new Scripture because that is exactly what new revelation is.”

Really?  I thought scripture was the *WRITTEN* Word of God.  Where does the notion that revelation and scripture are the same thing come from?  Not every revelation was written down.  At the end of John’s Gospel he says “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25)  So: not all of God’s revelation is contained in scripture. All f the treasures of scripture we has not yet been mined; we are discovering and understanding more of God’s will and plan for us.  Please answer my previous question:  If you believe in the Holy Trinity, where is that in the bible? 

In the peace of Christ.

Faithful,

RE: mk’s comment and your repsonse:  See John 21:25.

Blessings

Faithful

I’m afraid all of the answers we seek are not in sacred sciptures.

That is a big difference between Catholics and other faiths. Catholic trust in the scriptures and the guidance of their Church leaders since the Crucifixion of Jesus. Other faiths only go so far as what they see in print.

The Catholic Church recognizes the role of Mary as a powerful intercessor with God. It also recognizes that Mary was assumed into Heaven Body and Soul. That is not in the scriptures either, and this teaching was not proclaimed by the Church until I believe around 1950. There are endless examples, the Rosary being perhaps the most powerful. Mary has been given powerful roles in Our Church because God gave them to her.

A clarification.

It has been said that God is still revealing Himself to us.  This is not what the Church teaches:

God has said everything in his Word

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

He might reveal His will for us, but all that will be revealed doctrinally, has been revealed.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a1.htm

mk,

Thank you. And Christ has spoken directly to Saints like Faustina and blessed Anne Catherine Emmich in visions and revealed more of His Passion for all the world to hear.  Mary has appeared often and left messages and even secrets with those to whom she has appeared.  All of it intended to bring us closer to Christ.

48,000 different Protestant groups as opposed to just One Catholic Church.

Sad legacy of Luther.

Should I follow Luther or the One True Faith?  No contest.  Apostolic succession to me is very important.

I would rather die than deny the true presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  I would rather die than leave the One True Faith.  Not being mean, but who started your church?  Christ founded ours and not a mere human being.

Peace.
alberto

ToddC writes
“Faithful writes: “If new revelation is still being given then what you have is new Scripture because that is exactly what new revelation is.”

Really?  I thought scripture was the *WRITTEN* Word of God.  Where does the notion that revelation and scripture are the same thing come from?  Not every revelation was written down.  At the end of John’s Gospel he says “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25)  So: not all of God’s revelation is contained in scripture. All f the treasures of scripture we has not yet been mined; we are discovering and understanding more of God’s will and plan for us.
Let’s start with John 21:25. John certainly does say Jesus did do and teach other things not recorded. My question to you is what? What else did He do and say that is not recorded? Do you have some examples?

ToddC writes- “Please answer my previous question:  If you believe in the Holy Trinity, where is that in the bible?”
Here are some passages that show the Trinity:
The Trinity

Isaiah 48:16
Matthew 3:16-17
Matthew 28:18-20
Luke 3:21-22
John 14:26, 16:13-15
2 Corinthians 13:14
Galatians 4:6
Ephesians 2:18, 4:4-6, 5:18-20
1 Peter 1:2
1 John 5:7

alberto writes

“48,000 different Protestant groups as opposed to just One Catholic Church.

Sad legacy of Luther.

Should I follow Luther or the One True Faith?  No contest.  Apostolic succession to me is very important.

I would rather die than deny the true presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.  I would rather die than leave the One True Faith.  Not being mean, but who started your church?  Christ founded ours and not a mere human being.”

These kinds of numbers are thrown around all the time. Have you ever personally compared the differences of 10-20 Protestant churches? A good way to see what they believe is to compare their statements of faith. Secondly, most church split that i know are not because of doctrinal differences but for expansions. Some splits are justified such as those splitting those that want to support homosexuality as something God honors.

There has been much more evil done by the RCC than any other church. Just look at the inqusitions that went on for centuries.

Protestants can trace their source also to the begining via the Catholic church to the NT church.

Mk writes “...The real question is, If Peter is not the authority that Jesus left on earth to guard and guide His Church/Bride with the help of the Holy Spirit, then on whose authority do you base your own understanding of scripture?  33,000 different denominations and NONE of them can agree on what the Scriptures say.  It’s every man for himself.  No authority.  No final word…”

Your church claims to have an authority to offically and infallilbly interpret the Scripture. Where is this infallible interpretation of the Bible to be found? What verses of the Bible has the RCC offically interpreted? (If you don’t know it will suprise you)

faithful,

I don’t see the term Holy Trinity anywhere in any of those references. The term must no be scriptural.

So, because John said Jesus did many other things that weren’t written down they must not have been irrelevant.  I imagine those other deeds Christ did were probably mundane routine daily tasks, and John just didn’t want to bore us with them.  That’s why he mentioned them in his Gospel.  OK.

pgs writes-  “Faithful

I’m afraid all of the answers we seek are not in sacred sciptures.

That is a big difference between Catholics and other faiths. Catholic trust in the scriptures and the guidance of their Church leaders since the Crucifixion of Jesus. Other faiths only go so far as what they see in print.

The Catholic Church recognizes the role of Mary as a powerful intercessor with God. It also recognizes that Mary was assumed into Heaven Body and Soul. That is not in the scriptures either, and this teaching was not proclaimed by the Church until I believe around 1950. There are endless examples, the Rosary being perhaps the most powerful. Mary has been given powerful roles in Our Church because God gave them to her.”

You are correct the RCC does not base all its doctrines and practices on Scripture but on the teachings of men. That’s why they are not apostolic.

ToodC writes-“faithful,

I don’t see the term Holy Trinity anywhere in any of those references. The term must no be scriptural.

So, because John said Jesus did many other things that weren’t written down they must not have been irrelevant.  I imagine those other deeds Christ did were probably mundane routine daily tasks, and John just didn’t want to bore us with them.  That’s why he mentioned them in his Gospel.  OK.”
It is true the term “Trinity” does not exist in Scriptrue but that does not mean the concept is not. Trinity is a description term used to describe the nature of God.

So you admit no one knows what else Jesus said and did even though John alludes to them?

Faithful,

But where, where is that in the bible?

ToodC writes -“Faithful,

But where, where is that in the bible?”
Where is what in the bible?

Faithful, I’ll pray for you.  You are a good Christian.  I can somewhat see myself like you when I was beginning to learn the Faith.

Do not be misled as to think that Protestantism can be traced back to Christ.  Jesus founded the Catholic Church.  You can deny that all you want, but that is just the plainest truth as it can be.  Luther started the Protestamt movement.  Who gave him the authority to start a new church?

Pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you.  Peace to you my brother.

alberto

Correction:

Pray to the Holy Spirit, not for the Holy Spirit.

Thank you
alberto

ToddC writes –“May I make an observation, Faithful?  It seems the NT Greek lexicon you use is a somewhat dry, lifeless, mechanical interpretation of a language so essential to our Christianity.  Also, we must be careful when using it, because there are many times the Greek words used in the original books of the bible had already been translated from ancient Hebrew or Aramaic.  I think that is why there is a difference in our views on the meaning of “full of grace”.  Remember, Jesus and his followers didn’t speak Greek.  They spoke Aramaic.  If you do some research online you will discover the Church and other theologians have learned a great deal more about this ancient language since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  I think you will find new, more accurate translations forthcoming.”
Even though Jesus may have spoken in Hebrew or Aramaic we have to go by what is written. The original writings were in Greek and that is what we must go by.
Secondly, NT Greek lexicons are vital to understanding the meanings of words and how they are used in the NT. Doctrines many times come down to the meaning of words. Luke 1:28 is a case in point. The phrase “hail favored one or full of grace” does not mean that a person in such a condition does not mean they are that way all their lives from conception onward nor does it mean such a person is sinless. This is one of the major verses that the RCC uses to claim Mary was conceived without sin and yet the verse does not support that at all.
I hope scholars do produce more and more accurate translations. Most of the ones we have now are very good such as NASB and the EVS.

Alberto writes “Faithful, I’ll pray for you.  You are a good Christian.  I can somewhat see myself like you when I was beginning to learn the Faith.

Do not be misled as to think that Protestantism can be traced back to Christ.  Jesus founded the Catholic Church.  You can deny that all you want, but that is just the plainest truth as it can be.  Luther started the Protestamt movement.  Who gave him the authority to start a new church?

Pray for the Holy Spirit to guide you.  Peace to you my brother.”
Thanks for the prayers. As to your comment about the Catholic church being the church founded is not entirely correct. The NT church was structured differently than the RCC (no celibate office nor pope) and its doctrines are not the same. The apostles did not teach: papal infalliblity, indulgences, the Marian doctrines nor purgatory to name a few. This things were not part of the NT church and so were not RCC.

PGS wrote: “You are correct the RCC does not base all its doctrines and practices on Scripture but on the teachings of men. That’s why they are not apostolic”.

I should have also pointed out -  RCC leaders were and are guided by the Holy Spirit in their decisions around teaching. That’s the difference.

mk writes- “We have been guaranteed that the “Gates of Hell will not prevail”...that the teaching authority of the Church, on matters of morals and dogma can NOT make a mistake.  In 2,000 years, the mass is virtually unchanged, and the teachings of the Church, not the customs, but the teachings, have remained intact and undefiled.”
When Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against it does not mean the church cannot teach falsely. If this is what is meant then the warnings of false teachers coming into the church to decieve many would be absurd. Paul mentions this in Acts 20:28-31 and 2 Peter 2:1. Revelation 2:14-20 Jesus Himself rebukes these churches for embracing false teachings. Such warnings and examples would be absurd if the church was guranteed not to make a mistake in doctrine and dogmas.

The Apostle John states, “These things are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through His name.”  He also says, “these things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life.” If John says we can know we have eternal life, and that it comes by believing, why does the Council of Trent place an anathema on people who say they know they have eternal life because they have believed in Jesus?

Faithful - do you believe in the scritures you read? Just curious, I suppose I have been reading the posts and have been assuming you believe in that which is in scriptures. Maybe that is not the case.

Not sure what to say - the keys to breaking out of the box and deepening your relationship with Jesus are all in here. Being a Catholic requires sacrifice, swallowing your pride on occassion. Placing faith in things we can’t see, trusting in God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary, and Communion of Saints. Everything is not written down, as Todd mentioned.

Jesus probably had a sense of humor but I can’t tell that reading the Gospels, can you? He seems pretty serious all the time. Does this mean that since there are few if any examples of this in the Bible, then it cannot be so?

Faithful,

I have to turn in since it’s getting late.  But before I do, I had a list of questions about the Church before I became in love with it.
1.  Mary
2.  Purgatory
3.  Papal Infallibility
4.  Tradition
5.  Communion of Saints
6.  Corrupt members
7.  Indulgences
8.  Purgatory
9.  Sacraments
10. Images
11. So on and so forth

After years of reading, then RCC became clear to me.  Many things that I thought I knew about the Church were misconceptions.

I recommend the writings of the Saints especially Saint Alphonsus.  After the Bible, his writings turned my life around.

Also if you have cable, tune in to EWTN.  Watch “The Journey Home”.  Great show about conversion stories.

Good night, my brother.

alberto

Pgs writes “Faithful - do you believe in the scritures you read? Just curious, I suppose I have been reading the posts and have been assuming you believe in that which is in scriptures. Maybe that is not the case.

Not sure what to say - the keys to breaking out of the box and deepening your relationship with Jesus are all in here. Being a Catholic requires sacrifice, swallowing your pride on occassion. Placing faith in things we can’t see, trusting in God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary, and Communion of Saints. Everything is not written down, as Todd mentioned.”
Your comment about my reading the Scriptures is one of the more interesting comments i have seen. I do read them quite a lot and i compare what they say with what the RCC teaches and i see a big disconnect. Do you read the Scriptures? Most catholics i know do not. I don’t think catholics have a depth of knowledge of the Scriptures but rely primarily on what the church teaches. They accept what the church teaches without looking at what the Scripture really says. This makes its easier to accept what Rome teaches. I think if more catholics studied their Bibles and accepted it as the ultimate authority catholics would be calling their leaders to account.

PLEASE GET THE CD PROGRAM by Dr.  Scott Hahn,  “””  THE FOURTH CUP “”“,  go to www.LIGHTHOUSECATHOLICMEDIA.ORG   LIGHTHOUSE CATHOLIC MEDIA.   

This CD Program is excellent   ,  $  3.00   WHY DO WE NEED THE EUCHARIST !!!  THIS IS GOD’S COVENANT !!!    WE HAVE TO EAT THE LAMB—-  TO LIVE—-THE PASSOVER—THE JEWS HAD TO EAT THE LAMB—NOT JUST COOK IT   !!!  FANTASTIC CD PROGRAM.  I just bought 16 copies. 

Every Catholic should listen to this CD !!    Also get his book—-”“” THE LAMBS   SUPPER “”

Faithful, I don’t read the scriptures all the time, rarely actually. And it is a good thing to do and I should do it more often. It is encouraged in the Catholic faith and not done enough.

I used to, however. And much of what I read is in line with Catholic teaching. I remember much of the scriptures however, and for me, they affirm my Catholic faith. And, I hear them on Sundays and other days of the week when I am able to attend Mass.

Many are connected to Saint’s feast days, which helps reinforce my understanding. The Saints lives were small pieces of the complete puzzle, all pointed one direction. Each making their contribution to the Body of Christ.

I don’t agree that many Catholics accept Church teaching. Too many reject the parts that require acceptance and faith. Birth Control, Abortion, stem cell research, divorce, the list is endless. It’s hard being a Catholic these days. You’re concern is that you have relatives, family members who don’t go to Church because they don’t accept some Church teaching. And, one knows that blatenly breaking God’s commandment does not excuse us of this responsibility simply because we have a higher opinion of ourselves.

What scriptures do you read that cause your disconnect with the RCC?

Faithful,

No need to address my question about scriptures. I have read some of the previous posts and it seems we’re not really discussing diconnects with scriptures. Primarily issues with the evolution of the Catholic Church, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, long after Jesus conquered death. If I’m interpretimg your points correctly.

I can only say that Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Church, His Rock, and made him the first pope of His Church. And the rest is history. Later the Holy Spirit was sent to the Apostles and Peter’s successors to guide the Church into the future and throughout it’s life.

I would encourage you to study the life of a saint. My suggestion of that Saint is St. Faustina Kowalski, the Apostle of Mercy. Read her Diary. This is a saint that Jesus appeared to often and she wrote down Jesus’ words and her own sufferings. She died in 1938 at age 33 and her diary and message of Mercy was rejected by the Church for 62 years. It is approved by Church teaching now. If you don’t believe it in, ok. But, I can promise you it will give you a deeper ubnderstanding of God’s Mercy and how Jesus pursues us and what is important to Him.

http://www.thedivinemercy.org/message/stfaustina/bio.php

Regarding Mary, we know that God favored her. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, after Mary said yes. Mary was assumed into Heaven body and soul. Mary plays a powerful intercession role inside and outside the Catholic Church. She is our Mother who loves each of us dearly. I trust that past popes were guided by the Holy Spirit during the church’s evolution and that it took a long time, but they got it right. The Holy Sprirt is not limited by the pages of the Good Book, and will give Wisdom to those who will listen, follow God’s laws, and thirst for answers.

Same with purgatory - it is real. And, we all can help those that went before us by paying for them, offering sacrafices, and as many Masses for them as financially possible. Our friends and relatives and those we don’t know need our help - we do have the power to help them, because of God’s love and mercy for us and them.

A difference in faith or belief, yeah I guess so. Is everything to this day completly in line with scriptures, probably not. Ultimately, I suppose our discussion will never be solved beyond that, as I dont know what you believe, only that which you dont. We are entreched in our views. Either we believe or not. I pray that you find the answers to that which you seek, when I receite the Divine Mercy Devotion.

God Bless You.

Faithful,

  Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, 6 in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.
29
  I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.
30
  And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.

31   Acts 20:28-30

How does this negate what I said about the gates of hell prevailing.  I said that the Holy Spirit would protect the Church from anyone or anything on matters of FAITH and MORALS.

Of course there will be enemies.  Of course the members of the church will err.  From my point of view Luther was one of our own group that perverted the truth to draw disciples away after them!

But on matters of FAITH and MORALS…Doctrine…hell cannot prevail. 

As for Revelation 2:14…this is a perfect example of the church being protected from false teachings!  This only exemplifies what I was saying.  Those churches were not faithful to the CC.  Not the RCC.  The CC.

There are a number of different “rites” in the Catholic Church.  Roman is only one of them.  There is the Latin, Byzantine, Alexandrian, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite, and Chaldean.  All of them validly Catholic.

Faithful,

Let’s look at some of what was written in the early church…

The Didache or “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles” is a manuscript which was used by 2nd century bishops and priests for the instruction of catechumens. Many early Christian writers have referenced it making this document relatively easy to date.

  “Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”.

  -Ch. 9:5

  “On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’”

  -Ch 14

St. Clement was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome; otherwise known as the third Pope.

  “Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity.”

Source: St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians

  “Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.”

  Source: Letter to the Corinthians, [44,4]

St. Ignatius became the third bishop of Antioch, succeeding St. Evodius, who was the immediate successor of St. Peter. He heard St. John preach when he was a boy and knew St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna. Seven of his letters written to various Christian communities have been preserved. Eventually, he received the martyr’s crown as he was thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

  “Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

  “Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

  “Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

  -“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

  “I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

  -“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

  “Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

  -Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

It goes on:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html

My point is that what the Catholic Church teaches is what has ALWAYS been taught…not invented by men, but handed down FROM Jesus, THROUGH men…

Note the quote on confession.  See how the Church has ALWAYS believed in the True Presence…

How about the early church and Mary…

The first historic indications of the existing veneration of Mary carried on from the Apostolic Church is manifested in the Roman catacombs. As early as the end of the first century to the first half of the second century, Mary is depicted in frescos in the Roman catacombs both with and without her divine Son. Mary is depicted as a model of virginity with her Son; at the Annunciation; at the adoration of the Magi; and as the orans, the “praying one,” the woman of prayer. (1)

A very significant fresco found in the catacombs of St. Agnes depicts Mary situated between St. Peter and St. Paul with her arms outstretched to both. This fresco reflects, in the language of Christian frescoes, the earliest symbol of Mary as “Mother of the Church.” Whenever St. Peter and St. Paul are shown together, it is symbolic of the one Church of Christ, a Church of authority and evangelization, a Church for both Jew and Gentile. Mary’s prominent position between Sts. Peter and Paul illustrates the recognition by the Apostolic Church of the maternal centrality of the Savior’s Mother in his young Church.

*************************************************************************
St. Justin Martyr (d.165), the early Church’s first great apologist, describes Mary as the “obedient virgin” through whom humanity receives its Savior, in contrast to Eve, the “disobedient virgin,” who brings death and disobedience to the human race:

St. Ephraem (d.373), the great Eastern doctor and deacon, directly addresses the Blessed Virgin in several Marian sermons. Direct prayer to Mary is also found in a sermon of the great Eastern Father, St. Gregory Nazianzen (330-389). (9) By the last part of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth, we have numerous explicit examples of direct prayer to the Mother of God, for example in the writings of St. Ambrose, as well as by St. Epiphanius. (10)

http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/articles/marian-apologetics/mary-in-the-early-church.html
*********************************************************************
There is so much more if you’d take the time to look.

I quote Peter and his successors as my Authority.  Who do you claim as yours?  If you say Jesus, you’ll have to back up where Jesus rebukes the Catholic Church because so far you have not shown me one iota of evidence that the Eucharist, Confession, the Papacy, etc. is not from Jesus.  I can show you 2,000 years of unadulterated history, while you only point to your own interpretations of Scripture.  Who am I gonna believe?  Peter?  The Church Fathers?  History?  Or some anonymous blogger refuting 2,000 years of Church Teaching?

Pointing to “Peter and his successors as my Authority” MK asks, “Who do you claim as yours…you only point to your own interpretations of Scripture.  Who am I gonna believe?  Peter?  The Church Fathers?  History?  Or some anonymous blogger refuting 2,000 years of Church Teaching?”  MK, the Scripture was given so we could read it and understand it.  That’s why the text was written in koine rather than classical Greek; it was written for the common person to understand.  Of course we interpret it, just as we interpret the symbols you have used to communicate on this website.  All of language involves interpretation.  To suggest that we cannot know the truth because we are interpreting symbols is to reduce language to the point of absurdity.  The question is not whether something is an interpretation but whether the interpretation is correct.  A third grader can read the Gospel and letters of John and understand that it says we can know we have eternal life, and that eternal life comes through believing in Jesus.  When the Catholic Church places an anathema on the third grader for saying that because she believes in Jesus, she knows she will go to heaven when she dies, the problem is not with the third grader’s interpretation; the problem is with the Catholic Church.  When the 2000 years of unadulterated history, the teaching about the Eucharist, Confession and the papacy all point to the rejection of that plain teaching of the Apostle John in those verses, we ought to reject it.  Whether the person is an anonymous blogger makes no difference.  If an anonymous blogger tells us one thing and the most visible religious leader in the world tells us the opposite, we can determine who is correct by looking at the Scripture.  Otherwise the warning of the Apostle Paul is meaningless, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:8)

Twelve Oaks, the sad result of that type of thinking is that people think they can do whatever they want to get to Heaven. As long as they say they accept the Lord once, they are saved. And, they don’t need to confess their sins to anyone but God in their thoughts. These are not true, and anyone that believes them are being fooled.
Let people interpret through scriptures only, and this supercedes everything. Ask 10 people their interpretation of scriptures and you’ll get 20 different answers. Precisely the reason why the Catholc Church exists and is guided by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus knew it. Because it should not be left to a third graders interprtation - any one persons view. Including us bloggers 2000 years later, as mk stated.

God bless you all.

Peace,
alberto

PGS, I didn’t say “people think they can do whatever they want to get to Heaven.” What I said was that the way we determine how to get to heaven is by reading the Scriptures.  The reality is that those who reject the Scripture are the ones thinking they can do whatever they want to get to heaven.  If someone comes to us with a false gospel, one that opposes what the Scripture says, we should reject that wrong view.  That’s what the Apostle Paul plainly tells us.  What is really sad is that religious leaders try to negate plain texts, such as the ones I just quoted, and mislead millions of people for generations.  You have given no valid reason for rejecting what John has said.  According to your view, if someone comes to us with a different gospel we ought to accept it if the person tells us that his view is infallible or that he comes from an organization that really knows the truth.  The Watchtower, the Mormons and many other false groups tell their followers that they have the real truth.  In His wisdom, the Lord gave us the Scriptures so we could identify the truth tellers from those who would deceive us.  If what you say is true, what does Paul mean in Galatians, and how would you apply it 1:8?

MK writes-“How about the early church and Mary…

The first historic indications of the existing veneration of Mary carried on from the Apostolic Church is manifested in the Roman catacombs. As early as the end of the first century to the first half of the second century, Mary is depicted in frescos in the Roman catacombs both with and without her divine Son. Mary is depicted as a model of virginity with her Son; at the Annunciation; at the adoration of the Magi; and as the orans, the “praying one,” the woman of prayer. (1)

A very significant fresco found in the catacombs of St. Agnes depicts Mary situated between St. Peter and St. Paul with her arms outstretched to both. This fresco reflects, in the language of Christian frescoes, the earliest symbol of Mary as “Mother of the Church.” Whenever St. Peter and St. Paul are shown together, it is symbolic of the one Church of Christ, a Church of authority and evangelization, a Church for both Jew and Gentile. Mary’s prominent position between Sts. Peter and Paul illustrates the recognition by the Apostolic Church of the maternal centrality of the Savior’s Mother in his young Church.”

Just because something is found in the catecombs does it make it true or what the church believed. Many people came to Christianity with their pagan beliefs and incorporated them into their own.

Faithful writes, “Just because something is found in the catecombs does it make it true or what the church believed.” I agree with that point.  Imagine if during the last 25 years we tried to discern truth by relying upon contemporary art or music.  Scripture is our only infallible source of information about what Jesus and the Apostles taught.  Other information may be interesting, but if it conflicts with Scripture, we must reject it.

PGS- writes “Let people interpret through scriptures only, and this supercedes everything. Ask 10 people their interpretation of scriptures and you’ll get 20 different answers. Precisely the reason why the Catholc Church exists and is guided by the Holy Spirit, and Jesus knew it. Because it should not be left to a third graders interprtation - any one persons view. Including us bloggers 2000 years later, as mk stated.”

I have asked this a number of times to catholics who claim the RCC interprets Scripture. Where is this work? Where is this infallible interpretation of the Scriptures that you go to when you want to know the correct interpretation of a verse or passage? It does not exist. If i were to ask a 10 catholics the interpretation of a verse i would get a number of different interpretations and not one could claim this is the offical and infallible interpretation of the RCC.

Faithful writes, “If i were to ask a 10 catholics the interpretation of a verse i would get a number of different interpretations and not one could claim this is the offical and infallible interpretation of the RCC.”  This is an interesting point.  In fact, even the Catholic scholars don’t agree on many of these points.  What is even more interesting is we are supposed to believe that the Catholic classical scholars and theologians who write the commentaries and translate texts do not have the ability to interpret the very texts they have translated.  That authority resides only in the Magisterium.  Yet, the Bereans were commended for interpreting the Scriptures to see whether what the Apostles were saying lined up with the Scriptures (Acts 17:11)

To: Faithful - From Merle - The Pope / Magisterium has the ultimate authority to interpret scripture since The Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church, and therefore the church cannot err in what she teaches. Just as the first Pope Peter in Acts 2:14 Peter stood up with the eleven, and addressed them…. (at Pentecost)......Acts: 15:19-20 It is my judgement, therefore (Peter pronounces first dogmatic decision).....Comment:  the First church Council, was the councilof Jerusalem (50 AD) called by St. Paul.  There was much discussion among the Apostles.  However, when Peter spoke, ‘‘the assembly fell silent’‘.  His statement ended the discussion.  This council obviously considered St. Peter’s authority final.

To: faithful - from Merle - Re: AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET SCRIPTURE. See Acts: 15:7 Brothers, you know from the early days God selected me from among you to be preach the Good News to the Gentiles, so that they could hear and believe…(Peter speaking as chair) Please read the verse.

Can any of us proclaim to know what frame of mind the St. Paul was in when he made that statement? Here is a man that was once a persecutor of Christians - hated them and often was involved with their end. And, he was converted on the Road to Damascus by Jesus. He then became a great saint of the Gospel.

He was constantly persecuted for his beliefs after that. He was told to stop teaching about this “false Messiah”. And, when he didn’t, he was imprisoned or beaten. He knew well that there were constant attempts to deceive the faithful about Jesus’ Death and Resurrection - in all the surrounding lands. The beatings he could handle, but false blatent teaching designed to discredit people’s belief in Jesus made him angry.

He was not referring to Jesus’ Church in that passage. He was referring to those that would seek to eliminate the memory of Jesus’ Death and Resuurection who tampered with the core truths about Jesus in his time. How do we know that people in those days in other parts of the world or areas were scheming and saying that Paul said this about Jesus, and Paul said that about Jesus when Paul did not say any such thing. What is missing in this scripture passage is what happened to Paul leading up to the days of writing that text. We simply don’t know. We can’t proclaim to know the exact motivation of what a saint is thinking on occassion when writing his or her opinion in the Gospels.

That is my interpretation of that passage - and illustrates my point. Yours will likely be different. And ask others and you’ll get different viewpoints, which is why you can’t just rely only on scripture.

Secondly, based on this verse, by logic people like St. Padre Pio would be cursed. Here is a saint that bore the stigmata wounds for 50 years. A staunch advocate of the Blessed Virgin and the Rosary. He was able to see departed souls, they used to climb the mountains to his church and thank him for offering Mass for their souls. He believed in the Sacraments, including confession, and was given the grace of knowing the sins of people before they confessed their sins. I think we can agree that the life he lived and what he believed was not completely in scriptures. Was he cursed for it?

St. Faustina Kowalski is the Patron Saint of Divine Mercy. She had visions from Jesus about Our Lord’s Mercy. Jesus chose to appear to her and proclaim His Mercy to the world through her. She is an amazing saint who accomplished this during her life in the humble and quiet confined of a small cell in a convent. To this day, her message of Mercy from her life is proclaimed louder than ever today. Did St. Paul know about Faustinas mission way back in the first century? Is she cursed? And are we mad at Jesus for throwing this curve ball at us? Designed to deepen our faith and help in the salvation of souls, using her example?

God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit can do as they please, when they please to save souls. They can use the contributions of the saints, and do, all with the sole purpose of saving souls. And that’s exactly what the Trinity does with Mary and the saints.

God Bless.

Too bad that other denomincations are missing spiritual things such as Mary,the saints,the Mass,the Sacraments,and Devotions like the Rosary and Divive Mercy. I believe that God uses all of these along with the sacred scriptures to help peoples belief on their journey in life. If we decide to try to understand them.

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:8)

Denying the Eucharist, Confession, etal IS preaching another Gospel from the one that the apostles preached.  That’s my point.

Can a third grader understand scripture?  To a point, sure.  Was scripture written for “every man”.  Yes.  Also to a point.

Love one another.  Simple enough.  Or is it?  I say to love someone is to point out their errors, you might say to love someone is to live and let live.  Someone else might say it means to have sex…

That was an interpretation of just three words.

Or how about the Bread of Life Discourse?  Surely, a third graders take on this would be very different than yours or mine.  So we go to an authority.  Someone who has spent his or her entire life studying Hebrew, Greek, Latin.  Koine might be fine for someone that speaks Greek, but what of Joe in Iowa?  Language has nuances.

If I say “My name is Mary Kay.  You know, like the cosmetics.”  You would know to take the first part as fact and the second as metaphor.  You would not think that I AM cosmetics.  But what if you spoke French?  Maybe the nuance wouldn’t be quite so clear.  Just look at instructions for putting toys together when they are written in Japanese…lol…

Even, as has been pointed out, the experts cannot agree on interpretation.

When it comes to the papacy, the Eucharist, confession etc, and I show you documents that illustrate clearly, that the early church accepted and practiced these things,  you respond that this is not evidence that they were right.  Well where is your evidence that A. they were wrong, or B. you have the correct interpretation?  I can show you a clear and concise history of the Catholic Church (again NOT Roman, although I can do that too) while your history began in 1500.  Where were the Christians who did NOT practice infant baptism, did NOT honor Mary, did NOT believe in the True Presence, did NOT go to Confession, did NOT recognize the Pope, and did NOT have a valid priesthood?  There weren’t any, because they were all Catholic. If they didn’t follow these doctrines they were not even considered Christian.

On whose authority did you eliminate these things?

Anabaptists?  Calvinists?  Lutherans?  Heck, even the names of these churches suggests that it’s followers were following MEN, not God.

Which church do you belong to?  What denomination do you follow?  Evangelical?  Methodist?  Baptist?  Non denominational?  Why is your particular church right and the others wrong?  Why all the dissent?  Why are there 33,000 different denominations if you are all interpreting scripture correctly?

Faithful writes, “Just because something is found in the catecombs does it make it true or what the church believed.” I agree with that point.  Imagine if during the last 25 years we tried to discern truth by relying upon contemporary art or music.  Scripture is our only infallible source of information about what Jesus and the Apostles taught.  Other information may be interesting, but if it conflicts with Scripture, we must reject it.

If you had found those paintings in a brothel, I would agree.  But what if 2,000 years from now you found a book that was titled The Greatest Artists of the 20th Century.  And then found other books and documents to back up the claim.  You would get a pretty good idea of what the culture thought was a. important, and b. the best.

These painting were found in the catacombs, a place where Christians buried their dead.  For fear of persecution.  These items were sacred, important.

Not album covers or magazine photos. 

You’re killin’ me here…you say that if it contradicts scripture then it should be thrown out!  Where the heck do you think the books that are in the bible came from?  Tons of stuff was deemed unworthy to be part of sacred scripture!  WHO decided which books went in and which were tossed????  The Teaching Authority!  The magesterium!  The EXPERTS.  You accuse us of having an authority other than Scriptue, yet that very Scripture exists because of the authority you dismiss….

When the 2000 years of unadulterated history, the teaching about the Eucharist, Confession and the papacy all point to the rejection of that plain teaching of the Apostle John in those verses, we ought to reject it.

Plain to WHOM????

Let’s look at this scripture passage:

Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, 6 in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.
29
  I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.
30
  And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.

First, John is giving authority to the men he is speaking to…watch over the flock of which you are OVERSEERS.  He is also speaking to a group of people that believe in the True Presence, confession and the priesthood.  He warns that others, from within, will try to pervert the Truth, to take away the things that they believe…ie: The Eucharsit, Confession, the Authority of the Church.

If he is only speaking of Christians who need do nothing but “believe” then why all the hulabaloo? 

We had a Church, a united Church for 1500 years.  From within came men who changed what was already established. Now you tell me how you think that WE are the wolves, and you are the ones upholding the Truth.

Twelve Oaks and Faithful,

Explain your interpretation of this passage:

For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it,
1Cr 11:19     for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.
1Cr 11:20     When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.
1Cr 11:21     For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk.
1Cr 11:22     What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
1Cr 11:23     For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
1Cr 11:24     and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
1Cr 11:25     In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
1Cr 11:26     For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
1Cr 11:27     Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
1Cr 11:28     Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1Cr 11:29     For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.  1 Cor 11:18-29

Or this:

  The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
17
  Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
18   1 Cor 10:16-17

Okay, so maybe I get a little heated.  Sorry.  Must be the Italian in me.  Or the Irish.  Either way,  I don’t mean to sound like I’m attacking “you”, just your arguments.  I’m really sorry if I come across rather harshly.  Mea Culpa.

To Faithful: Re: Incorrupt bodies. Thank you for your reply.

You wonder what message it conveys?

Let me then begin by asking you whether this phenomenon is a work (miracle) of God, since it is impossible for a body not to go into corruption upon death.

PGS makes three points. (1) “Can any of us proclaim to know what frame of mind the St. Paul was in when he made that statement?” The way we can know his frame of mind is by looking at what he said.  Paul stated “I am amazed.” Why? Because the Galatians had moved to another gospel. (Gal 1:6) His statements also indicate great concern; (2) “He was not referring to Jesus’ Church in that passage. He was referring to those that would seek to eliminate the memory of Jesus’ Death and Resuurection who tampered with the core truths about Jesus in his time.”  There is nothing in the text that confirms what PGS says.  Rather, the inspired Word of God says that he was referring to people who were perverting the gospel and trying to put Gentiles under the law. (3:1ff); (3) “We can’t proclaim to know the exact motivation of what a saint is thinking on occassion when writing his or her opinion in the Gospels.”  All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction for instruction in righteousness.”  We may not always know the exact motivation, but we cannot use that concept to nullify the plain teaching of passages we may not like, such as Gal 1:8.  When we take that approach, the Bible is nothing more than a book of words we use to justify the things we have chosen to do or not to do.  If the plain meaning of Gal 1:8 is to be rejected on that basis, then we might as well reject a wide range of other verses on the same basis.  Do we have to know the angel’s motivation when he stated Hail, Mary, full of grace?  or when Jesus said, “this is my body?” Should we nullify those verses because the text may not tell us the exact motivation of the speaker?

mk writes -“These painting were found in the catacombs, a place where Christians buried their dead.  For fear of persecution.  These items were sacred, important.

Not album covers or magazine photos.”
My point is that do these paintings reflect the theology of the early church? They may be important but that does not mean they reflect what the church truly believed and secondly they may not reflect truly what the Scriptures teach.

Merle said, “in Acts 2:14 Peter stood up with the eleven, and addressed them…. (at Pentecost)......when Peter spoke, ‘‘the assembly fell silent’‘.  His statement ended the discussion.  This council obviously considered St. Peter’s authority final.”  Merle, his statement didn’t end the discussion at all.  The very same verse you are quoting says, “then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.”  The next verse says that James spoke.  It appears that James rather than Peter made the decision 15:19ff.

Mk writes -“You’re killin’ me here…you say that if it contradicts scripture then it should be thrown out!  Where the heck do you think the books that are in the bible came from?  Tons of stuff was deemed unworthy to be part of sacred scripture!  WHO decided which books went in and which were tossed????  The Teaching Authority!  The magesterium!  The EXPERTS.  You accuse us of having an authority other than Scriptue, yet that very Scripture exists because of the authority you dismiss…. “

Do you know the “tests” that were used to determine which books should be included in the NT?
I don’t dismiss your authority but hold your authority i.e. magesterium accountable to Scripture. The magesterium is not greater than Scripture since only Scripture is inspired-inerrant while the magesterium is not.

Can someone help me:

Whenever I am writing, in a few minutes this page goes out (refresh) and I lose all what I have written and have to begin again, and then it happens again. How do I freeze the page till I finish writing and submitting?

Thanks.

Terry writes -“To Faithful: Re: Incorrupt bodies. Thank you for your reply.

You wonder what message it conveys?

Let me then begin by asking you whether this phenomenon is a work (miracle) of God, since it is impossible for a body not to go into corruption upon death.”
I have no idea what it means.
Miracles in Scripture are meant to convey a specific message of God and attest to its truthfulness. Jesus’ miracles were specifically used by God to support Who Jesus was and what He taught as true.
What message from God has He sent the RCC on the meanings of these things? Who did He communicate it to specifically?

Terry writes-“Can someone help me:

Whenever I am writing, in a few minutes this page goes out (refresh) and I lose all what I have written and have to begin again, and then it happens again. How do I freeze the page till I finish writing and submitting?

Thanks.”
i have that same problem now and then. What you can do is write your comments in MS Word or some other application then copy and paste back here.

Faithful,

My point is that do these paintings reflect the theology of the early church? They may be important but that does not mean they reflect what the church truly believed and secondly they may not reflect truly what the Scriptures teach.

On their own know.  But in context with what the early Christians wrote, what the catacombs represent and what history tells us, then yes.  We can be pretty sure that an artistic representation of Mary, found in a Christian underground, during the years of the early church and join it with what the early church fathers say….that it is a true representation of what Christians believed.

Were they right?  Well, none of it contradicts scripture.  None of it contradicts what Paul says.  None of it contradicts what Jesus said.

He honored His mother, we know that scripturally and historically the mother of the King was the Queen.  We know that Jesus gave His mother to the world at the foot of the cross.  We know that He told the apostles, the Jews and anyone that would listen that His Body and Blood would be TRULY represented in the form of bread and wine.  We know that He told the apostles to go into the world and forgive sins.  Those they retained would remain retained.  We know that the original apostles were so important (the first new priests) that when one of them was lost, he HAD to be replaced.  We know that the priesthood was necessary because it was instituted through Levi thousands of years before hand.  We know that certain men were anointed/consecrated and given special roles.  We know that the other apostles looked at Peter as their leader and that Jesus Himself proclaimed Him to be so.  We know that there was precedence for eating a supernatural bread, and we know that there is precedence for slaughtering a lamb and eating it. 

All this and more we know from Scripture.  The very Scripture you hold as the only Truth, and the very Scripture that those in authority whom you question, gave us.

If you dismiss the authority, then you must dismiss the Scriptures also…

Dear faithful: Re Incorrupt bodies.

You say that you do not know. Well then, if that is the case, you are unable to tell which is a work of God and which is not? Are we not able to test all spirits to know which is from God and which is not?

Thank you for your advice on the problem of auto page refresh.

mk writes “....If you dismiss the authority, then you must dismiss the Scriptures also…”
The apostles did not ever teach that Mary was to be prayed to nor the idea she was queen of heaven. Secondly, there is no office of priest in the NT. Its never mentioned. All believers are priests (I Peter 2:9). The issue is can church authority ever be wrong? Of course. History should shows the errors.

<i>The apostles did not ever teach that Mary was to be prayed to nor the idea she was queen of heaven. Secondly, there is no office of priest in the NT. Its never mentioned. All believers are priests (I Peter 2:9). The issue is can church authority ever be wrong? Of course. History should shows the errors. <i>

Are the apostles the only ones that speak in Scripture?  Jesus, not the apostles, singled His mother out.  God did also, when He proclaimed her full of Grace.  We DO know that the mother of the king was the Queen.  Does Jesus not tell us that He has a Kingdom?  Do we not call Him the King?  Is Mary not His mother?  Nowhere does Jesus ever say that only men could be apostles, yet we know that this is true.  A thing does not have to be explicitly stated in order to be understood.  This was the point about the Trinity.  No where is the word “Trinity” found in scripture, yet who would doubt that it is so?

As for the authority, again, if you dismiss their authority, then you must dismiss the Scriptures as they were from the authority you dismiss.

God, not I, not the Catholic Church, but GOD is the one that gave the Church the authority and promised that while she would indeed be attacked, she would not succumb.  And she has not. 

You never answer where your authority comes from.  You keep turning it around to our authority.  I have given you mine.  Who/what is yours.  When one of your 33,000 denominations disagrees, who makes the final decision?  The Lutherans?  The mennonites?  The Baptists?  The Methodists?  You?

Faithful,

On the Priesthood, from the Catechism with scriptural references, including the laying on of hands (apostolic succession)

Therefore, Jesus has a special anointing by the Holy Spirit (cf Mt 3:16; Lc 4:18; At 4:27; 10:38) in which he allows his whole mystical body to participate: in him all christians become a “holy and royal priesthood to offer offerings to God through Jesus Christ and to proclaim the miracles of who has called them from darkness into his wonderful light (cf 1 Pt 2:5.9). As highpriest and mediator he has made of the Church “a kingdom of priests for God his Father” (Ap 1:6; cf Ap 5:9-10). These texts are the bases for the doctrine of the “common priesthood”.

As a matter of fact, all this shows us a time very near to Christ: summer of the year 56 for the letter of James and approximately the year 58 for 1 Tim. The Acts of the Apostles speak twice about the rite of the imposition of hands (Acts 6:6 and 13:3; cf also 14:23), testifying to the presence of “presbyters” at Ephesus in the year 58 (At 20:17). They were also called “episcopi” (Acts 20:28). The letter of 1 Peter used the letters to Titus and to Timothy; the letter itself made reference to the letter to the Hebrews which was written before the destruction of the temple in the year 70. Therefore it seems that the writings which speak about “presbyters” were redacted exactly when James, Paul and Peter were still alive.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_24111998_pnewt_en.html

MK writes, “The original apostles were so important (the first new priests) that when one of them was lost, he HAD to be replaced.”  What were the criteria for an Apostle?  He had to have seen the risen Lord. (Acts 1:22).  He also had to have the marks of an apostle (1 Cor 12:12): the ability to perform signs and wonders, i.e. healing all diseases, raising the dead and striking people dead.  There is no indication those apostolic gifts were passed on after the Apostles themselves died.  Scripture and the historical record both seem to confirm that those gifts ceased (c.f. Heb 1:1ff; Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14).  When Paul lists the people to whom Christ appeared, he says, Jesus Christ appeared to Paul “Last of all.” (1 Cor 15:8) The current leaders of the Catholic Church do not fit this description.

Faithful, I have not seen in your posts showing any inclination that you believe anything about Jesus. Only that the Catholic Church is corrupt and evil and you will never believe anything they say. You try to use the scriptures in an attempt to attack people’s beliefs, and that is all. In my case, I don’t believe anything you say.

Prove me wrong, what are your strongest core beliefs about the Gospels? You know, those you would proclaim from the rooftops? What is it that makes you Faithful?

TERRY- You can also write two or three short posts.  I finally got the hang of this - it used to cut me off too…

TWELVE OAKS - I LOVE your posts!  I LOVE all the Scripture verses you use and I believe 100% as you do, that when there is a difference between the Word of God and anything else, tradition included, the Bible is the gold standard of measure, and God’s Word trumps everything.

MK - the difference between a homily and a sermon: I didn’t know there was one, and have gone to Mass for all my life.  Here’s an example of what I experienced - several weeks ago, the readings at Sunday Mass were all about doctrines from Galations, including salvation.  But the priests that preached that weekend ALL preached drivel.  Not one spoke of anything of eternal value.  Maybe it’s just in my area?

So this does not time out - I’ll answer one other person in a post to follow.  Thank you for all the good feedback here.

Cradle Catholic writes -“Prove me wrong, what are your strongest core beliefs about the Gospels? You know, those you would proclaim from the rooftops? What is it that makes you Faithful?”
For the purposes of our discussions here i am a Protestant that believes in Sola Scriptura and the 5 points of Calvinism.
Jesus is God in the flesh Who came to die for the sins of the world and only faith in Him that saves. I believe in all He taught. Does this help?

Cradle Catholic i made a mistake in addressing you instead of waiting. Sorry about that.

Twelve Oaks says:

“PGS makes three points. (1) “Can any of us proclaim to know what frame of mind the St. Paul was in when he made that statement?” The way we can know his frame of mind is by looking at what he said.  Paul stated “I am amazed.” Why? Because the Galatians had moved to another gospel. (Gal 1:6) His statements also indicate great concern; (2) “He was not referring to Jesus’ Church in that passage. He was referring to those that would seek to eliminate the memory of Jesus’ Death and Resuurection who tampered with the core truths about Jesus in his time.”  There is nothing in the text that confirms what PGS says. “

There is nothing in the text that confirms what you say either - thats the point. Pick a controversial passage and turn it your way - that’s all youre doing. The very same passage you zero in on can easily be turned against your words, as you saw in an earlier post.

TODD C: The word “Trinity” is not in Scripture.  I believe the word was coined at a council of bishops in the early days of the Church, like at the Counci of Trent.  I may be wrong. 

That said, the CONCEPT is most certainly in Scripture - in fact, it is all over the Bible, from Genesis Chapter One to the most illustrative example, the Baptism of Jesus, when the Father’s Voice said, “This is My Son, in whom I am well pleased” and one “like” a dove hovered over Jesus, and of course, Jesus, 100% Man and 100% God was there.

FATIHFUL asked if faith must be based on facts.  Of course!  What good is faith in something if it’s not based on facts?  Has everyone read the series of books by Lee Strobel, former investigative reporter for a newspaper who had been atheist, and whose wife became Christian?  He set out to prove Christianity wrong, and he is now an apologist for Christ.  He wrote books like “The Case for Christ”, “The Case for Easter” etc.  The FACTS were there enough to change his mind, and make him a believer.

Speaking of facts - please, I do not mention this to annoy anyone, but since we are all speaking what’s really on our minds - what did Martin Luther say that was SO bad the Catholic leaders in those days wanted to kill him?  I read his 95 thesis recently, and frankly, I agreed with them.  He wanted to stop the church leaders from selling indulgences in order to create wealth for themselves for building projects, etc.  We needed a reformation at that time.  There was too much unchecked power and from feudal days too.

The men running the Church at that time were NOT like the apostles.  And Twelve Oaks - I agree with your last point.  St. Paul was the last hand-picked apostle chosen by Jesus Himself.  Matthias was chosen by lot, and the other man may have been equally good.  Both were equally qualified.

Back to Scripture differing from Tradition - the ideal qualification for men in ministry are married, and with grown children.  See 1Timothy 3:1-5 and Titus Chapter One.  If someone says the man should only have ONE wife, and cannot remarry, in case he is widowed, how can it be justified that Scripture calls for priests to have grown children?  Scripture should trump tradition, especially tradition from the year 1139.  Before that time, it was NOT universal Church Tradition.

Faithful - No problem.  Hope “waiting” is still reading this post.  I’m signing out till tomorrow.  Thanks for the great discussion!  God bless everyone.

Cradle,  Thanks. I’m glad you appreciate the authority of the Scriptures.  I like your comparison to the gold standard!  Also, I don’t in any way want to be harsh or mean spirited in the posts I have made.  I merely want to present Scripture that touches on these various issues in order to have a meaningful discussion.  If the Bereans were commended for searching the Scriptures, why shouldn’t we try to do the same?  From what I can tell, the Apostles and the Lord Himself would be pleased with that approach.

Mk writes-“Are the apostles the only ones that speak in Scripture?  Jesus, not the apostles, singled His mother out.  God did also, when He proclaimed her full of Grace.  We DO know that the mother of the king was the Queen.  Does Jesus not tell us that He has a Kingdom?  Do we not call Him the King?  Is Mary not His mother?”
The apostles are not the only ones who speak in Scripture. If Mary was the queen with Jesus being King then why didn’t He teach this? In fact He never comes close to saying so. Notice what He says in Mark 3:31-35-  31Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him.
32A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You.”
33Answering them, He said, “Who are My mother and My brothers?”
34Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, “Behold My mother and My brothers!
35"For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
Notice that He never refers to her as His queen or any other exalted position. Nor does He say that a person should ask for her help. This should cause anyone who believes in her some great concern.

12oaks,

Act 6:6

They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them. 4

4 [6] They . . . laid hands on them: the customary Jewish way of designating persons for a task and invoking upon them the divine blessing and power to perform it

Acts 13:3

  While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”
3
  Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off.

Acts 14:23

  They appointed presbyters 5 for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith.
24

Acts 20:28

  Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, 6 in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.
29

Acts 20:17
  From Miletus he had the presbyters of the church at Ephesus summoned.
18

As a matter of fact, all this shows us a time very near to Christ: summer of the year 56 for the letter of James and approximately the year 58 for 1 Tim. The Acts of the Apostles speak twice about the rite of the imposition of hands (Acts 6:6 and 13:3; cf also 14:23), testifying to the presence of “presbyters” at Ephesus in the year 58 (At 20:17). They were also called “episcopi” (Acts 20:28). The letter of 1 Peter used the letters to Titus and to Timothy; the letter itself made reference to the letter to the Hebrews which was written before the destruction of the temple in the year 70. Therefore it seems that the writings which speak about “presbyters” were redacted exactly when James, Paul and Peter were still alive.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_24111998_pnewt_en.html

Again, who is your authority?

This should cause anyone who believes in her some great concern.

You do know that Jesus was FULLY human right?  Not half human?  But FULLY human?  Any laws that apply to familial relations in Jesus time applied to His mother as well.

I’ve already shown that not everything in scripture is explicit.  It is often understood. 

As far as who is my mother?  Who is my brother.  In this instance Jesus was taking the opportunity to show that through Him we are ALL related to each other.  Do you really think He was saying that Mary was NOT His Mother???

Mk writes- “This should cause anyone who believes in her some great concern.

You do know that Jesus was FULLY human right?  Not half human?  But FULLY human?  Any laws that apply to familial relations in Jesus time applied to His mother as well.

I’ve already shown that not everything in scripture is explicit.  It is often understood. 

As far as who is my mother?  Who is my brother.  In this instance Jesus was taking the opportunity to show that through Him we are ALL related to each other.  Do you really think He was saying that Mary was NOT His Mother???”
Jesus was fully God and fully man. The problem with the implicit method in Scripture is that boundaries must be understood how far we can go with this otherwise any thing could be said to be in Scripture. Major doctrines must have explicit support in Scripture.

The passage in Mark about Mary does indeed show she was His mother but no more. It also shows that Jesus did have other brothers and sisters that were the offspring of Mary. I know this may rattle a few cages but we must deal with the plain meaning of this texts that shows she was not a perpetual virgin,

PGS says, “There is nothing in the text [Galatians] that confirms what you say either…The very same passage you zero in on can easily be turned against your words, as you saw in an earlier post.”  The readers can review both of our posts and determine whether there is “nothing in the text that confirms what I said.”  PGS, I have never read any commentator, Catholic or otherwise, who agrees with what you have expressed about Galatians, particularly about 1:8.  When we are interpreting Scripture, we cannot use any technique we wish, hoping to arrive at a proper understanding.  A person using the literal, grammatical and historical method to interpret Galatians would not arrive at your explanation of Paul’s argument.  Also, as a safeguard, if a person’s interpretation of a text is not found anywhere else, there is reason to question whether it is correct.

Dear faithful:

If Jesus had other brothers and sisters why did He entrust Mary to John? (and from that hour the disciple took her into his house? JN: 19:27)

Twelve Oaks -

I LOVE THE BEREANS!!!!!!!!!  What an excellent comparison to use for us today!!! 

Regarding the post about Mary - when Mary & Jesus’ other relatives came to see Him one time, He said, “Who is my mother?  Who are my brothers?  Anyone that does the will of God…” - that’s a paraphrase, from memory, and it is for us.  While everything in Scripture was not written TO us, it was written FOR us, and for our benefit.

What Jesus said was not to diminish the Blessed Mother and her role in His life as His mother, and in being a stellar example for the rest of us in our lives, so that we too can give our “Fiat” - your will be done, as an answer to God in our lives…

But rather it was to bring US up to Mary’s level, & the Apostles’ level.  Remember Jesus said John the Baptist was great in Heaven, but WE will also be great, for submitting to God’s holy and good will for us, through God’s grace.

It is all about God.  Scripture, from cover to cover, is all about Jesus.
Catholics would be well-served to be Christ-centered, cross-focused, and keep our minds in His Word, so we can know Him better!  My 2 cents! 

Now - signing off till tomorrow!! Excellent discussion.  Thank you to all!

For Joselyn, thanks for responding. Am glad you got to visit some Orthodox churches. One good thing about cultural differences between churches is you get to try a lot of great cooking. I’m afraid St. Isaac’s speculations on hell are pretty much his own. The Orthodox might call them a theologoumenon or theological opinion. They do not represent Orthodox teaching. A fairer representation, I believe, is Fr. Alexander’s: “Hell, unpopular as it is to modern people, is real. The Orthodox Church understands hell as a place of eternal torment for those who willfully reject the grace of God. Our Lord once said, “If your hand makes you sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched - where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44-45). He challenged the religious hypocrites with the question: “How can you escape the condemnation of hell?” (Matthew 23:33). His answer is, “God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:17). There is a day of judgement coming, and there is a place of punishment for those who have hardened their hearts against God. It does make a difference how we will live this life. Those who of their own free will reject the grace and mercy of God must forever bear the consequences of that choice.” This is the teaching I have always known as an Orthodox.

The Orthodox description I think comes close to the view in the Catholic Catechism §1033: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell.’” Both Churches I believe are right on the subject of hell. Fear of God is a virtue too often forgotten in our age of pop culture and consumer religion. Hopefully I can respond to your other points at a later time. God bless.

Terry writes- “Dear faithful:

If Jesus had other brothers and sisters why did He entrust Mary to John? (and from that hour the disciple took her into his house? JN: 19:27”
There could be any number of possiblities. Perhaps His brothers were not there when this happened at the crucifixion.  This happened quite quickly.

Terry -  You asked about Jesus’ brothers and sisters.  The Bible said Jesus DID have several brothers and a few sisters.  None of them believed He was the Messiah, and it was only after the Resurrection that James, who is identified as Jesus’ brother, became active in His ministry, and (please someone, correct me if I am wrong…) it was Jesus’ brother James that was the first bishop of Jerusalem, and he is the James that wrote the epistle by that name.

It was very important for Jesus to entrust Mary to a believer - and the apostle John was “the apostle Jesus loved” and also, it was John that accompanied Mary and the other women, to the Crucifixion site.

My guess is that the “Church Fathers” once again had active imaginations and they embellished the idea of Mary’s PERPETUAL virginity, instead of focusing just on the Virgin Birth of Jesus.

Many of the Church Fathers (dating from the year 125 on), were pagans originally and they highly prized the concept of virginity as being superior to the married state.  This is contrary to what the Jews believed at that time, because it was customary for people to marry.

About John the Baptist (himself a birth that was unnatural, in terms of the advanced age of his parents, showing God’s supernatural intervention) being single, and Jesus being single: each came to earth to do a mission, and it was for the salvation of all of us.  Neither were on earth to live lives like average people.  Jesus was born to die.  He was the Lamb of God that took away the sin of the world.  John the Baptist was his herald.

I pray Catholics would get to know God as Father (not the cruel ‘God of the Old Testament’) and to think of Him as He is: compassionate, merciful, patient… and calling for us to know Him better.  Also the Holy Spirit - the cause for the apostles to go from hiding in the upper room, to spreading the Good News of the Resurrection and the coming of the Messiah to ALL.

It only took me 4 months to read the Bible from cover to cover - best thing I ever did.  I highly recommend it!!

Dear Twelve Oaks:

You appear to be saying that to be saved one must read the Scriptures. But the Bible in print became available only a few hundred years ago and that too to a few educated (and perhaps mainly wealthy) in Europe, and reading ability of the masses and widespread availability much later. Also, reading by itself does not necessarily mean arriving at proper understanding.

There are many (having read or not) who will not enter the kingdom of heaven for Jesus Himself says “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter…Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and work many miracles in thy name?’ And I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of iniquity!’ (St. Matthew 7:21-23)

Note: The chastisement (WORKERS OF INIQUITY) and MANY (not a few) and IN THY NAME (for it is in the name of Jesus that they have done all this work).

These people who are cast out must have thought that they were saved when in fact they were not.

A person using the literal, grammatical and historical method to interpret Galatians would not arrive at your explanation of Paul’s argument.

And what third grader is using the literal, grammatical and historical method to interpret scripture????  lol

Major doctrines must have explicit support in Scripture.

Really?  Where is the explicit support for sola scriptura?

Or how about faith alone?

Or the Trinity?

How about the Rapture?  Talk about a stretch!

The Incarnation?

Atheism?

The antichrist as protestants see him?

Lucifer as satan?

Thanks, MK. I am not saying that the early church did not lay hands on people and send them out.  I am merely pointing out that the Apostles were a special group of people instrumental in the early days of the church, and that we do not have apostles in that sense of the word today.  There are not currently Apostles receiving revelation from God.  The revelation is complete.  Even if it could be demonstrated that the Pope is the successor of Peter, the Pope is not an Apostle, does not receive direct revelation from God and has no guarantee of greater illumination from the Holy Spirit than other believers.  The Spirit has not guaranteed to make the Pope’s statements “infallible.”  To say that the Catholic Church is in some way “apostolic” because the pope is a successor of Peter is to go beyond what the Scripture says about the Apostles and their relationship to the church.  Further, infallibility is not a doctrine which was believed by the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers.  That was the general line of thinking with the post I had made.

I know this may rattle a few cages but we must deal with the plain meaning of this texts that shows she was not a perpetual virgin,

So now you’re an authority on what plain text is?  Where exactly does it state that Mary did not remain a virgin?  You mean where it says she remained a virgin until the birth of Jesus?

So plain text would mean that if a man remained celibate until the day he died, he would have had sex after he died?  Or the guy that never had a drink until he died?  He became a lush after death?

You make the assumption that because you read it a certain way, it must be so, but that is not true.  And I’ll bet good money that you didn’t come up with that all by yourself.  My guess is that you’ve studied scripture with someone…an authority maybe?  Why do you trust your authority and dismiss ours?  Who is your guy?  Where’d he come from?  Who told him his interpretation was correct? 

Either you read scripture for yourself, or you don’t.  If you don’t then you concede that there are those who know more than you.  If there are those who know more than you, than why so quick to dismiss 2,000 years of authority?  Authority that comes from men who knew the apostles?  Or Paul himself?

Cradle Catholic
Do you realize that all you do is speculate like a conspiracy theorist on what “really ” happened?  Again- you cannot have it both ways. EIther the Church’s teaching is correct or it is not. It cannot be a little bit correct.  If it is wrong about the Virgin birth then what else is it wrong about?  Are you going to tell us ? Are you going to determine what we should believe?  Did the Lord come to Earth only to have his message messed up by the early Church fathers? If so what a waste———why would He do that? He could have “corrected” those early Church fathers if He wanted to - He did not…..unless you are so prideful that you think He is asking YOU to do it for Him.

Terry writes “Dear Twelve Oaks:

You appear to be saying that to be saved one must read the Scriptures. But the Bible in print became available only a few hundred years ago and that too to a few educated (and perhaps mainly wealthy) in Europe, and reading ability of the masses and widespread availability much later. Also, reading by itself does not necessarily mean arriving at proper understanding…”
What did the Catholic church teach before the Scriptures were mass produced and were able to be read to be saved? What did people need to believe and do to be saved then?

Dear Cradle Catholic:

Though the NT mentions names of persons who the people referred to as brothers and sisters of Jesus, people also referred to Joseph as the father of Jesus when they identified Jesus as the Carpenter’s son. That does not make Joseph the actual father.

twelve oaks,
All that is true, but the statement was that there is no valid priesthood today.  I’m simply pointing out that Paul and the apostles would differ with you.  Scripture refers to the laying on of hands, which to a Jew meant conferring special powers.  And Scripture talks about Presbyters and he “sets them apart”.  Read the old testament to know what that means.

The point is, the priesthood is most definitely in Scripture.

Yes, the 12 were unique.  They represented the 12 tribes.  But beyond that Peter was singled out.  Given authority.  And he passed it along to the next guy.  Did you read my post about what the transfer of the keys meant to the Jews?

John 17:15-19

  I do not ask that you take them out of the world but that you keep them from the evil one.
16
  They do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world.
17
  Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth.
18
  As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
19
  And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.

Matthew 16:15-19

  I do not ask that you take them out of the world but that you keep them from the evil one.
16
  They do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world.
17
  Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth.
18
  As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.
19
  And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth.

Newnews- The institutional Roman Catholic church IS wrong about several things that do not jive with Scripture.  This is why we are instructed to “test the spirits” and HOLD FAST TO WHAT IS TRUE.

1) The Perpetual Virginity of Mary - Jesus was her “first-born” son, and the others are in Scripture, by name.

2) There is no Purgatory - there is only Heaven and Hell, and we choose now.  There is no way to get a dead person out of Purgatory, or take ‘days’ from his/her punishment, by our doing good deeds or collecting indulgences

3) There is no such thing as an Induldgence -

To points 2 and 3, Jesus did it all on the cross.  He said, “It is finished” and then He sat down at God’s right Hand, showing all the work is done.

St. Paul - and his magnificent Galations verse that was read at Mass several weeks ago, will show you how it is not our work, by His work, His ‘righteousness’ with which we are clothed, and God the Father, “puts our sins as far as the east is from the west, and he REMEMBERS THEM NO MORE.”

We have the Holy Spirit inside of us, as children of God - we do not take the Holy Spirit anywhere but directly to Jesus’ arms, when we die, as children of a loving God.  Remember the Prodigal Son - there was no ‘holding period’ before he was restored, after repenting and returing to his Father.

4- Priests are supposed to be married, as St. Paul wrote: “... for if a man cannot manage his own little family with dignity, how can he take care of the church of God?”

I can go on more - but those are the biggies.  It’s all in the Bible.

... I forgot something - I think that must be why Martin Luther wanted to remove Maccabees from the Old Testament - because that’s where the Church Fathers got the idea of Purgatory and praying for the dead.

In the New Testament - both ideas are 100% foreign.  We live in the New Testament, and under God’s Grace!

Maccabees is good for reading - I’m glad I did.  It’s from that book that the Jews got the feast of Hannukka, if memory serves. But it is not for doctrine.

Unfortunately, the Church Fathers used it for DOCTRINE - and it conflicts with New Testament teaching.

Has everyone heard the joke about the young bride that cut off the top of the turkey before putting it in the oven?  It was because her mother and grandmother did the same thing.  The grandmother’s oven was too small to fit a full-size turkey, and the mother and young bride did it, because it was the way they were taught: Tradition.

Read Mark Chapter 7 for what Jesus had to say about tradition…

As for Jesus having brothers…convenient that in one post you claim that Jesus asks “Who IS my brother?”, claiming that this shows that He is teaching a lesson on “brotherhood”, and in the next you claim it is a literal reference to his biological brothers.

I taught preschool for 11 years.  Many of the children were from India.  One little girl, whom I knew to be an only child, told me she went to a party with her 20 brothers.  I laughingly told the mom that she had apparently been a very busy lady!  She told me that cousin and brother were often interchanged in their country.

Dear Faithful:

What did the Catholic Church teach before…?

If you want to read, it is all in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

(You have picked up on what I wrote to 12 Oaks without answering my query to you about the works of God.)

I forgot something - I think that must be why Martin Luther wanted to remove Maccabees from the Old Testament - because that’s where the Church Fathers got the idea of Purgatory and praying for the dead.

Great Gatsby man!  First you tell me that Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and the highest authority in the world on all things Christian, then you tell me that Martin Luther dumped a book in Scripture????

He also added a word.  Wanted to dump James too, but they nixed him.  You all have a problem with Mary not being explicitly called a Queen, but have no problem with some guy 1500 after the fact removing and adding books and words to Scripture!  And you wonder why we don’t take you seriously.

Again…

ON WHOSE AUTHORITY did he do this?????

</i>Unfortunately, the Church Fathers used it for DOCTRINE - and it conflicts with New Testament teaching.</i>

Or maybe it was because it didn’t fit with his erroneous ideas?  What was his excuse for dumping James?  He didn’t like that it contradicted - EXPLICITLY CONTRADICTED…IN PLAIN TEXT - the idea of Faith Alone.

He, not Jesus, not God, not even an apostle, but some dissenting Catholic Priest, decided that HE knew better than everyone that the scriptures were wrong and he figured he’d just erradicate the evidence!

He is the wolf we were warned about.  And you see where it’s gotten us.

33,000 denominations.  No longer one church.  and NO ONE will answer me.

ON WHOSE AUTHORITY????????

He said, “It is finished” and then He sat down at God’s right Hand, showing all the work is done.

Really?  He did it all on the Cross, did he?  Said it was finished, eh?

Then why the resurrection? If it was finished on the cross, what else was left to do?  Or are we throwing out the resurrection now too?

Priests are supposed to be married, as St. Paul wrote: “... for if a man cannot manage his own little family with dignity, how can he take care of the church of God?”

I think I’m getting an aneurysm.  First there is no such thing as the priesthood.  It’s not scriptural remember?  Now you tell me that those priests who don’t exist, should be married…lol…*sigh*

Jesus did not have brothers and sisters - Mary was a Perpetual Virgin. The word brothers and sisters had different meanings in that day with the language, this has been proven by scholars an endless number of times.

Secondly, I am suprised at how quickly some folks are ready to toss aside the role of the Virgin Mary. While at the same time quickly ready to tarnish her life by challenging that she was a Perpetual Virgin. I don’t see how anyone truly believing in and having fear of Jesus could do this. Sad..

Terry writes “Dear Faithful:
What did the Catholic Church teach before…?
If you want to read, it is all in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
What catholics were taught in the early centuries is not what is taught today. For example, those before 400 for example did not believe in Mary’s assumption or sinlessness.
Terry writes “(You have picked up on what I wrote to 12 Oaks without answering my query to you about the works of God.)”
Not sure what you are referring to. Can you point to it so I can respond?

Terry writes- “Dear faithful: Re Incorrupt bodies.

You say that you do not know. Well then, if that is the case, you are unable to tell which is a work of God and which is not? Are we not able to test all spirits to know which is from God and which is not?”
Sorry i missed this. It is true we can test the spirits in I John 4:1-3. Now, what message are these incorrupt bodies supposed to convey when the Scripture is clear that we will be resurrected?

Terry writes-“Thank you for your advice on the problem of auto page refresh.”
your welcome

pgs writes -“Jesus did not have brothers and sisters - Mary was a Perpetual Virgin. The word brothers and sisters had different meanings in that day with the language, this has been proven by scholars an endless number of times.

Secondly, I am suprised at how quickly some folks are ready to toss aside the role of the Virgin Mary. While at the same time quickly ready to tarnish her life by challenging that she was a Perpetual Virgin. I don’t see how anyone truly believing in and having fear of Jesus could do this. Sad..”
Actually the word used is for blood brothers and sisters. Here are some of the reasons that she did indeed have other chidlren:

1)  No mention of it in the Scripture.  She nor do any writers claim she was a perpetual virgin. 
2)  The passage in Luke 1:48 in which Mary says she is a virgin does not mean she took a vow of perpetual virginity.  It is only that she is a virgin up to this point in time.
3)  The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically. There is no indication from the OT or NT that it would be acceptable to be married and yet chose to be a perpetual virgin. Married Jewish couples were to be fruitful and multiply. This is OT teaching.
4)  When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19
5)  In the previous passages noted the best way to understand these relationships “brothers-sisters” is that these are siblings of Jesus by blood.
6)  There is no hint in Scripture that Joseph was previously married and had children.
7)  Paul refers to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19.
8)  There are Greek words for cousin—anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36

What is to be gained by keeping Mary a perpetual virgin?

Cradle Catholic

I ask you again…why would Jesus allow the Church fathers to misinterpret his message ?

Mk writes -“As for the authority, again, if you dismiss their authority, then you must dismiss the Scriptures as they were from the authority you dismiss.

God, not I, not the Catholic Church, but GOD is the one that gave the Church the authority and promised that while she would indeed be attacked, she would not succumb.  And she has not. 

You never answer where your authority comes from.  You keep turning it around to our authority.  I have given you mine.  Who/what is yours.  When one of your 33,000 denominations disagrees, who makes the final decision?  The Lutherans?  The mennonites?  The Baptists?  The Methodists?  You?”
I know the RCC has authority to teach. The issue though is all that she teaches true? On some issues it has been shown she has been false. Some teachings cannot be supported by Scripture or history.
Prostestants who believe and practice Sola Scriptura test all doctrines by the Scripture. That is their authority.

mk writes- (faithful)I know this may rattle a few cages but we must deal with the plain meaning of this texts that shows she was not a perpetual virgin,

mk-So now you’re an authority on what plain text is?  Where exactly does it state that Mary did not remain a virgin?  You mean where it says she remained a virgin until the birth of Jesus?

So plain text would mean that if a man remained celibate until the day he died, he would have had sex after he died?  Or the guy that never had a drink until he died?  He became a lush after death?

You make the assumption that because you read it a certain way, it must be so, but that is not true.  And I’ll bet good money that you didn’t come up with that all by yourself.  My guess is that you’ve studied scripture with someone…an authority maybe?  Why do you trust your authority and dismiss ours?  Who is your guy?  Where’d he come from?  Who told him his interpretation was correct? 

Either you read scripture for yourself, or you don’t.  If you don’t then you concede that there are those who know more than you.  If there are those who know more than you, than why so quick to dismiss 2,000 years of authority?  Authority that comes from men who knew the apostles?  Or Paul himself?”

Mary did not remain a virgin because of the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in the gospels. My theology is formed by what i read and listen to. Most doctrines in Sola Scriptura churches are well formulated and can easily be studied and compared to Scripture. There are also a lot of great Bible study tools on the market that can be used.

Dear Faithful: Re. Incorrupt bodies.

You keep asking what message it conveys? And I told you must first consider whether it is a work of God. Is it or is it not?

Dear cradle catholic,

In light of your comments about Jesus’ brothers and sisters, the book of Maccabees and prayer for the dead, I’d highly recommend “Catholicism and Fundamentalism,” by Karl Keating.  This book will explain these and many other misconceptions about the Catholic faith that non-Catholic Christians have.  And, quite honestly, he does it in a more cogent fashion than can be expressed in a forum like this.  I’ve shared this book with other Catholics who brought up the same thoughts that you have and it has cleared them up for them.  Since you’ve read scripture cover to cover, this will be all the more helpful.  May God’s Spirit guide us all on our journey.

God bless,

Dan

Dear angry catholic looking for God’s love. “God in it’s deepest mystery is not a solitude but a Trinity” JPII. Look deeper and you’ll see that the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father that the love of the father and the Son is the Holy Spirit the bond of unity. Now look at the real first family, the Holy family where the father Joseph love the son Jesus and Jesus loves the father Joseph and the love of both is the Virgin Mary who is their bond of unity. See how the Communion of Love that is God is reflected in the Holy family and we’re called to enter by Grace into Life. As a matter of fact that’s why God made them male and female so that all the world be filled with loving families living in communion of love. Study what God shows us in the Holy Family and if you humble and empty your self of all within that opposes God’s will you will be drawn by it’s beauty to come closer and enter, the invitation is real for I struggle against my faults, shortcoming, and anything that holds me back that why my motto is ‘I hope for all good thing from God and fear all evil from myself’ it sure keeps me from a lot of trouble and on the path. I also cherish 1st Cor: 9-27 “I chastise my body and bring it into subjection lest after bringing the Gospel to others I myself should be rejected”, no false security for ST. Paul.
It’s generally harder for men to be show love, I’m that way but I’m learning, but never forget that through Baptism we ca call God Father and in the person of John the beloved disciple we are also invited to receive the Immaculate Virgin Mary and call her our spiritual mother.
We’re not orphans we belong to the family of God.            We’re not alone we are LOVED! Peace.

MK writes, “You all have a problem with Mary not being explicitly called a Queen.”  I have always thought it a bit unusual that the Catholic Church would wish to speak of Mary as the Queen of Heaven, especially in light of the way Scripture uses that title. The phrase appears only five times, all in the book of Jeremiah(7:18; 44:17,18,19,25)

Actually the word used is for blood brothers and sisters

source please?  You know, as in on whose authority?  ;)

For example, those before 400 for example did not believe in Mary’s assumption or sinlessness.

Of course they did.  source please?

The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically.

source please?

On some issues it has been shown she has been false.

And on whose authority have you decided that these have been shown to be false?  Scripture?  And who gave us scripture.  You can’t have it both ways.

Either the Church (AGAIN…NOT the RCC but the CC) was given authority and what it binds is bound, or it was not.  Authority means authority.  It doesn’t mean sometimes it’s right, sometimes it’s wrong.  If God gave that authority to the Church, then you either trust God’s judgment, or you don’t.

My theology is formed by what i read and listen to. Most doctrines in Sola Scriptura churches are well formulated and can easily be studied and compared to Scripture. There are also a lot of great Bible study tools on the market that can be used.

And where in scripture does it say that scripture is the final authority?  I’ve asked, but have not been answered.  What scripture did the apostles use?  Paul?  ANYONE for the first 300 years?  How about the first 1500 when there were NO bibles for general distribution?

You listen.  You read.  You use bible study tools.  Who gave the authority to the providers of these tools.  You admit that God gave the authority to the Catholic Church.  Who gave the bible tool makers their authority?  WHERE is sola scriptura in scripture?  It’s a major doctrine, right?  Therefore, by your own definition, it should be “explicit”.

What about Faith Alone?  James EXPLICITLY denounces this idea.

You all have a problem with Mary not being explicitly called a Queen.”  I have always thought it a bit unusual that the Catholic Church would wish to speak of Mary as the Queen of Heaven, especially in light of the way Scripture uses that title. The phrase appears only five times, all in the book of Jeremiah(7:18; 44:17,18,19,25)

If Jesus is the King of Heaven and Earth, and His mother is the Queen, then it stands to reason that making offerings to the “false” Queen would tick God off, no?

Mk writes- “And where in scripture does it say that scripture is the final authority?  I’ve asked, but have not been answered.  What scripture did the apostles use?  Paul?  ANYONE for the first 300 years?  How about the first 1500 when there were NO bibles for general distribution?”
The reason the Scripture is the final authority is because only the Scripture is inspired-inerrant. Only in them do we find the Word of God. The apostles used the OT and were used directly by Christ and empowered by Christ Himself.
The church has always had the OT Scripture and also recognized NT even before the canon was formalized in the 4th century.

Now why would someone use the term “brother” of Jesus in the most literal sense (plain text)?  Joseph wasn’t Jesus real father so he could not have had any full brothers.  Also, who’s to say that the Greek translation from Aramaic was accurate:

This is important because the meaning of the Aramaic word for “brother” (aha) not only includes the meanings already mentioned but also includes other close relations, including cousins.

The first Christians in Palestine, not having a word for cousin, would normally have referred to whatever cousins Jesus had with such a general term and, in translating their writing or speech into Greek, it is quite likely that the Aramaic word aha would have been rendered literally with the Greek word for brother (adelphos).

Source for above:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp

Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the “brethren of the Lord.” As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of “the brethren of the Lord.” And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

So now we can see that her virginity was indeed accepted by the early church AND that the idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is biblically sound.

Vows Taken by a Married Woman
[6] And if she is married to a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself, [7] and her husband hears of it, and says nothing to her on the day that he hears; then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand. [8] But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he expresses disapproval, then he shall make void her vow which was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips, by which she bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her.

[13] Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void. [14] But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows, or all her pledges, that are upon her; he has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them. [15] But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity.”

Numbers chapter 30

http://www.thesacredpage.com/2008/03/biblical-basis-for-marys-perpetual.html

pretty explicit, no?

Must sleep.

Again, I’m really sorry if I’m coming across as condescending or snotty.  So much information. So many things to address!  It gets a bit overwhelming.  I’m really enjoying this and for all my smart mouthing, I’ve been challenged quite a bit here.  This is good.  We’re all learning.  I’m far from an expert!  Just ask my family…lol.  Really,  you guys are great.  I’ll be back in the AM and if you’ll have me, I’d love to continue. 

I’ll give you this, you guys are worthy “opponents”.  To my Catholic Friends…so much for “If only Catholics really knew their faith or read the bible more…”  You make me so proud to be Catholic!

G’night all and God Bless you all…

I am so happy to have found this page, to see more of those who love the Catholic CHURCH. To those who love and defend the CHURCH: Onward, Catholic Soldiers, so much work is still to be done. If Jesus and Mary are with you, who is against you? To those who malign Mary for not understanding Her role in our salvation: The more you malign Her, the more She will bring you to Her SON JESUS. It’s a MOTHER and SON relationship, Mary is CHRISTIAN and Jesus the CHRIST is MARIAN. They are inseparable. What Jesus loves, Mary loves it too. Where Jesus is, Mary will also be and vice-versa. Thanks a lot for Jesus and Mary’s love and obedience to the FATHER. Humility matters a lot.

Thanks!

Mk- Several problems with the Protoevangelium of James also known as The Gospel of James, also known as the Infancy Gospel of James or the Protoevangelium of James, is an apocryphal Gospel written around 150 and are not considered reliable and are works of fiction. They are certainly not something to base doctrines on.

Merle writes -“To: Faithful - From Merle - The Pope / Magisterium has the ultimate authority to interpret scripture since The Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church, and therefore the church cannot err in what she teaches. Just as the first Pope Peter in Acts 2:14 Peter stood up with the eleven, and addressed them…. (at Pentecost)......Acts: 15:19-20 It is my judgement, therefore (Peter pronounces first dogmatic decision).....Comment:  the First church Council, was the councilof Jerusalem (50 AD) called by St. Paul.  There was much discussion among the Apostles.  However, when Peter spoke, ‘‘the assembly fell silent’‘.  His statement ended the discussion.  This council obviously considered St. Peter’s authority final.”
If what you say is true then where are these interpretations of the Scripture by the pope and magesterium? For example, where do you go to find the correct interpretation of a passage of Scripture where a pope or the magesterium has interpreted it?
As for the first council in Acts 15 it was James and not Peter who had the final say on what was to be done.

mk writes -”...What about Faith Alone?  James EXPLICITLY denounces this idea”
Actually James is making the case for a living faith and what it looks like. Those that do not manifest the fruit of good works cannot be said to have a justified faith. We are saved by faith alone as John 3:16, 6:47 and Eph 2:8-9 show.

Who are you trying to convince —yourself or us?
Call me highly doubtful that Evangelicals are coming the Catholic church in droves.
Certainly not in my diocese or circle of Christian friends.
Essentially, it is the other way around.  Essentially, if you want a style of Gerber’s Baby
Food teaching, then sit in on our one of our Sunday homilies.  The clergy are ill prepared
and have little to teach.  Often it is a rehash or worse —another pitch for a second collection
—or a missionary nun asking for support.  Our priests have gotten Lazy and do not teach.
This may be regional, but the clergy in my diocese are lazy and give awful homilies.  Besides,
how much teaching can you do in 8 minutes of a homily?

Catholics I know seeking teaching are going to mass —and then attending a local Christian church
where the full Gospel is actually taught.

mk writes-“The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically.

source please?”
Just look in Scripture. The first instance would be Adam and Eve and Noah in Gen 9:7. See also Ps 127:3-5.
There are other places where it is spoken of in negative terms not to have children such as in Luke 1:25.

MCS writes-“I am so happy to have found this page, to see more of those who love the Catholic CHURCH. To those who love and defend the CHURCH: Onward, Catholic Soldiers, so much work is still to be done. If Jesus and Mary are with you, who is against you? To those who malign Mary for not understanding Her role in our salvation: The more you malign Her, the more She will bring you to Her SON JESUS. It’s a MOTHER and SON relationship, Mary is CHRISTIAN and Jesus the CHRIST is MARIAN. They are inseparable. What Jesus loves, Mary loves it too. Where Jesus is, Mary will also be and vice-versa. Thanks a lot for Jesus and Mary’s love and obedience to the FATHER. Humility matters a lot.”
Since you bring up Mary’s role in salvation do you agree with this quote: ” Many have proved invincibly, from the sentiments of the Fathers-among others: St. Augustine, St Ephem, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Germanus of Conantinople, St. John Damascene, St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Bernardine, St. Thomas, and St. Bonaventure-that devotion to Our Most Blessed Virgin is necessary for salvation, and that it is an infallible mark of reprobation to have no esteem or love for that Holy Virgin while, on the other hand, it is an infallible mark of predestination to be entirely and truly devoted to her.”

Saint Louis Mariae de Montfort

Saint Louis Mariae de Montfort was a doctor of the RCC and this is about the highest honor that a person can get. Is he correct?

I never claimed it was inspired.  What evidence do you have that it was fiction? Are you saying that all historical accounts are fiction because they are not inspired?  Crazy talk!  All I showed you was that it was indeed a common practice in biblical times.  And I backed it up with other sources including SCRIPTURE!

As for James, if that’s all he was saying that why did Luther want to throw his book out?

Nowhere are the words Faith Alone in scripture except in James where he explicitly says we are not saved by Faith Alone.  Plain text.  Now who’s reading more into it?

Paul says we are saved by faith.  But he does NOT say by faith alone. Neither does John.  They only say that we are saved by Faith.  And we are.  But not by faith alone. 

Just as Catholics do not say we are saved by works alone.  They cannot be separated. 

For more on this:  http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9710chap.asp

Jesus also says we must be baptized.  And we must eat the bread.  The living bread.  And we must follow the commandments.  There is a whole list of things that we are admonished to do.  NOWHERE does it say that Faith ALONE is enough.  Nowhere.  No matter how much you twist the words, you just can’t do it.  That’s why Luther added the word and requested that James be tossed out.  Praise God, he didn’t get his way.

You’d do well to take note.

You’ve never answered me.  Which protestant church has gotten it right?  Yours?  The Anglicans? Calvinists?  Quakers?  Shakers?  Baptist?  Which one figured out what the Catholic Church didn’t?

What St. Louis de Montfort was saying is that to diss Mary is to diss Jesus.  You can’t mock his mother and expect to be pals with the Man Himself.

Not to love His mother, deeply, is an insult to God.  That’s His mother you’re talkin’ about.

How do you think it makes Him feel when you trash his mum?  When you say she’s nothing special?  When you laugh at the idea that she is His Queen?

She is as responsible for your salvation as any other human being sans God Himself.  Without her?  No cross, no resurrection, no salvation.  You owe her a great deal.

MSC,

Awesome, ain’t it?

mk writes-“Jesus also says we must be baptized.  And we must eat the bread.  The living bread.  And we must follow the commandments.  There is a whole list of things that we are admonished to do.  NOWHERE does it say that Faith ALONE is enough.  Nowhere.  No matter how much you twist the words, you just can’t do it.  That’s why Luther added the word and requested that James be tossed out.  Praise God, he didn’t get his way.

You’d do well to take note.”
I already pointed out that John 3:16, 6:47, Gal 2:16 and Eph 2:8-9 do indeed show that we are saved by faith alone. This means no works can ever be said to help you get saved nor to keep saved. Again, look at these passages. The words “faith alone” do not occur but the concept does in these and other passages. Luther was wrong to add to Scripture.

mk- writes-“You’ve never answered me.  Which protestant church has gotten it right?  Yours?  The Anglicans? Calvinists?  Quakers?  Shakers?  Baptist?  Which one figured out what the Catholic Church didn’t?”
My church has it right i.e. we are saved by faith in Christ alone. See previous comment for passages. The RCC on the other adds works to salvation along with having to believe in Mary for salvation. If you stop doing works will you still be saved?

mk writes- “I never claimed it was inspired.  What evidence do you have that it was fiction? Are you saying that all historical accounts are fiction because they are not inspired?  Crazy talk!  All I showed you was that it was indeed a common practice in biblical times.  And I backed it up with other sources including SCRIPTURE!..”
Scholarly and the church itself looks at these works as fictions. That’s why they were never part of the NT canon. They might be interesting to read but they are still fictions and not to be trusted for their history.

Mary leads souls to Jesus.

Jesus leads souls to the Father, and sends the Holy Spirit.

Mary - the new Eve.

Jesus - the new Adam who made all things new. With His Precious Body and Blood.

Mary has been respected throughout the ages. All generations shall and do call Her Blessed - however less in this age. She is the Immaculate Conception, is a Perpetual Virgin, and is the Mother of each of us. God has favored Her. I believe she is the “woman clothe in the Sun” in Revelation. And whether we know it or not, she treasures each of us as her own. Perhaps even more those that don’t believe in her Son or herself.

God has favored her. Why can’t we in our own way? By accepting this, even though none of us has a concept what it might mean. She deserves our respect,for she was the vessel for Jesus being born, and without sin. I beg all who don’t consider Mary to have been an important part of the gospels to reconsider. And, if you still don’t see it, fine. However, please give her the respect and dignity she so richly deserves and the benefit of the doubt before we drop unfounded accusations at her feet.

God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit will bless you for this.

God Bless and have a Good evening.

G. K. Chesterton is awesome.

Hey MK,
Neither communion nor baptism are conditions for salvation.
Proof?  The thief on the cross next to Jesus was neither baptized nor received communion.
btw:  How many times in your lifetime MUST you receive communion to be saved?
THAT is legalism.  THAT is works.  This is something Luther (btw —you know he actually
was a Catholic priest)  tried to correct.

Even Peter proclaimed in ACTS:  “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.”
People like you, MK —are hard to convince re anything because you are in love with the
“institutional” church before Christ.  You have made the church your idol rather than first
submitting to the person of Christ.

it is easy to convert from protestantism to the Novus Ordo because there is not much difference…...all the Protester’s have taken over EWTN (Every Wishful Television Network) and brought their heretical views with them…“Speaking in tongues”  “laying of the Hands”.....“Salvation outside the Catholic Church”.....what should we expect JPII and Papa Ben promtoe the same…...

* A Heretic is a baptized person who rejects an authoritative teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.  A schismatic is a person who refuses communion with a true Pope or refuses communion with true Catholics.  An apostate is a person who rejects the Christian faith completely.  All heretics, schismatics and apostates sever themselves from the Catholic Church automatically (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943).  Therefore, if one is a heretic he is not a Catholic (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum June 29, 1896).  And most heretics convince themselves that they are not denying any dogma when they actually are.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Heresy_of_the_Week.php

www.traditio.com

Soo, not cool, Matthew Warner.  Evangelicals are not turning Catholic.  Anglicans are turning Catholic.  Your use of semantics to create a false illusion says a lot about you.

Protestantism has its place in the catholic order of church.  It shows the imperfect communion which “Rome” needs to restore.  When “Rome” (the pope) humbles himself in order to demonstrate fan(atical) fidelity to Jesus Christ and His church, all will see the conversion of the three major churches of Christendom reunite under the pope of that time.

The heart of the Roman Catholic church is Jesus Christ, not “Rome”.  Yet more stealthy semantics from you is not going to help the matter of conversion any.

Moreover, what good is it to marginalize Protestants by using a lower-case “p” when referring to them?  Lose the bigotry already.  Act Catholic for God’s sake, Matthew.  You’re writing for a we-say-we’re-Catholic newspaper.  At least inform yourself with charity when you are talking of non-Catholics.  Peace be with you.

Re. Mary, the mother of Jesus:

God has indeed made her the mother of God. The Bible says so.

Elizabeth, upon meeting her, was filled with the Holy Spirit and says out loudly, ‘mother of my Lord’. It is evident from this episode of the visitation (St. Lk. 1: 40…) that Elizabeth was in ecstatic joy of the Holy Spirit and the babe in her womb too leaping with joy, spoke in adoration of Mary.

No one else is the mother of God even though we who believe in Jesus have become His brothers and sisters. It is a choosing unique and exalted and so, it will do us well, like Elizabeth, to pay our highest respects to her, because, what God has chosen, let no man put asunder.

Scholarly and the church itself looks at these works as fictions. That’s why they were never part of the NT canon. They might be interesting to read but they are still fictions and not to be trusted for their history.

Sources please?

The church determined that these were not inspired.  That is not the same as determining them to be untrue.  What they have determined is that they are worth keeping around and keeping an open mind.

If they were the only source I provided, I could understand your reticence.  But I provided you with THREE sources, one of which is SCRIPTURE!

I already pointed out that John 3:16, 6:47, Gal 2:16 and Eph 2:8-9 do indeed show that we are saved by faith alone. This means no works can ever be said to help you get saved nor to keep saved. Again, look at these passages.

Show when we show you the “concept” of Mary being favored over all humanity, and point to historical precedence of Mothers of Kings being Queen, we are in error. But you can point to “concepts” and read into scripture what isn’t there?  Sort of hypocritical, don’t you think?

I have never, not once, said that we are not saved by faith. What I said is that we are not saved by faith ALONE.  And we are not.  Faith MUST go hand in hand with works.  They are inseparable.  Just as Jesus is inseparable from God.  Works won’t get you into heaven.  Faith won’t get you into heaven.  Only faith and works together will get you into heaven.

Perhaps we are disagreeing on what “works” are?

Luther was wrong to add to Scripture.

Luther was wrong about a lot of things.  But put that aside.  Why do you think Luther felt he needed to add the word “alone”?  If it was “plain text” and easily understood by everyone, then why would he need to change the words to prove his point?

Because his point was invalid.  That’s why.  He needed to add words to confirm his own personal opinion.  When we disagree with scripture (on this you are right) WE need to change our understanding to fit scripture, we don’t change scripture to fit our understanding.

No one, previous to Luther, EVER thought that we were saved by faith alone.  Why?  Because it’s NOT in scripture.  When the idea was first proposed, Luther had to rewrite scripture and remove books, lest people point out that his idea was erroneous!

You cannot claim plain text, easily understood by everyone, explicit for doctrine and then base your entire faith on something that is not plain text, easily understood or explicit!

mk writes -“Scholarly and the church itself looks at these works as fictions. That’s why they were never part of the NT canon. They might be interesting to read but they are still fictions and not to be trusted for their history.

Sources please?
The church determined that these were not inspired.  That is not the same as determining them to be untrue.  What they have determined is that they are worth keeping around and keeping an open mind.

If they were the only source I provided, I could understand your reticence.  But I provided you with THREE sources, one of which is SCRIPTURE!”
It is true they are not inspired but also they are taken as fictions. Here is a short paragraph on this from the New Advent which is a Catholic site:
“The Protoevangelium Jacobi, or Infancy Gospel of James

It purports to have been written by “James the brother of the Lord”, i.e. the Apostle James the Less. It is based on the canonical Gospels which it expands with legendary and imaginative elements, which are sometimes puerile or fantastic. The birth, education, and marriage of the Blessed Virgin are described in the first eleven chapters and these are the source of various traditions current among the faithful. They are of value in indicating the veneration paid to Mary at a very early age. For instance it is the “Protoevangelium” which first tells that Mary was the miraculous offspring of Joachim and Anna, previously childless; that when three years old the child was taken to the Temple and dedicated to its service, in fulfilment of her parents’ vow. When Mary was twelve Joseph is chosen by the high-priest as her spouse in obedience to a miraculous sign — a dove coming out of his rod and resting on his head. The nativity is embellished in an unrestrained manner. Critics find that the “Protoevangelium” is a composite into which two or three documents enter. It was known to Origen under the name of the “Book of James”. There are signs in St. Justin’s works that he was acquainted with it, or at least with a parallel tradition. The work, therefore, has been ascribed to the second century. Portions of it show a familiarity with Jewish customs, and critics have surmised that the groundwork was composed by a Jewish-Christian. The “Protoevangelium” exists in ancient Greek and Syriac recensions. There are also Armenian and Latin translations.”

Yes, I know that Luther was a Catholic Priest which is why on Aug 8th and 6:28pm I wrote:
He, not Jesus, not God, not even an apostle, but some dissenting Catholic Priest, decided that HE knew better than everyone that the scriptures were wrong and he figured he’d just erradicate the evidence!

It is also why I called him the wolf.  He was one of us, and he broke the Church from within!

My church has it right i.e. we are saved by faith in Christ alone. See previous comment for passages. The RCC on the other adds works to salvation along with having to believe in Mary for salvation. If you stop doing works will you still be saved?

YOUR church.  I’m tempted to make a remark about believing it was “God’s” Church….but I’ll show restraint.

And would that be the Church of “Faithful the Blogger”?  Are you saying that you, and you alone are qualified to be judge and jury on what scripture says?  You are your own authority?  All other churches are wrong?  Because I gotta tell ya, Pope Faithful the Blogger doesn’t have the same ring as Pope Benedict the XVI!  (I’m teasing, I’m teasing)

Or do you belong to a specific denomination and were using “MY CHURCH” rhetorically?

mk writes-“Yes, I know that Luther was a Catholic Priest which is why on Aug 8th and 6:28pm I wrote:
He, not Jesus, not God, not even an apostle, but some dissenting Catholic Priest, decided that HE knew better than everyone that the scriptures were wrong and he figured he’d just erradicate the evidence!

It is also why I called him the wolf.  He was one of us, and he broke the Church from within!”
Have you studied the history of this? Did the RCC have a major part in this? Was the RCC corrupt or not? It was these issues that the reformers were responding to.

ohn 3:3,5 - Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit). ,/i>

Matt. 28:19-20 -   Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to <i>observe all that I have commanded you.

Commanded.  Observe ALL.  Plain text.  Explicit.  Easily understood.  Fits the criteria for doctrine.  Or will you play with this text also.  Remove the words you don’t like…add ones you do?

For more:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html

BTW, when I ask for a source, this does not qualify.

<i>Scholarly and the church itself looks at these works as fictions.<i>

Your word is not a source. You need to show me something reputable that states that the church herself looks at these works as fictions.  Otherwise I’ll feel free to quote myself as proof of something.

The reason the Scripture is the final authority is because only the Scripture is inspired-inerrant. Only in them do we find the Word of God. The apostles used the OT and were used directly by Christ and empowered by Christ Himself.
The church has always had the OT Scripture and also recognized NT even before the canon was formalized in the 4th century.

Contradictions, contradictions, contradictions.

First you say that doctrine should be EXPLICTLY illustrated in scripture, then you say this doctrine is implied.  WHERE does it say explicitly that Scripture ALONE is our source of Truth?  No one is disputing that every idea in scripture is true.  The question was, where does it say in scripture that Scripture ALONE is the ONLY source of Truth?

mk writes -“My church has it right i.e. we are saved by faith in Christ alone. See previous comment for passages. The RCC on the other adds works to salvation along with having to believe in Mary for salvation. If you stop doing works will you still be saved?

YOUR church.  I’m tempted to make a remark about believing it was “God’s” Church….but I’ll show restraint.

And would that be the Church of “Faithful the Blogger”?  Are you saying that you, and you alone are qualified to be judge and jury on what scripture says?  You are your own authority?  All other churches are wrong?  Because I gotta tell ya, Pope Faithful the Blogger doesn’t have the same ring as Pope Benedict the XVI!  (I’m teasing, I’m teasing)

Or do you belong to a specific denomination and were using “MY CHURCH” rhetorically?”
All Christians have a responsiblity to know the truth and the Scripture. Being an authority does have any impact on what is truth. Does not make something more true. In fact we see in the gospels the “authorities” were misleading the people. So relying on an authority sometimes can lead to error.
I do belong to a non-demoninational church that is faithful to the Scriptures. One of the best ways to know what a church teaches and stands for is to read their statements of faith and see if they line up with Scripture.

The apostles used the OT and were used directly by Christ and empowered by Christ Himself.

First, how could the apostles subscribe to Scripture Only while at the same time use other sources?
Earlier you refuted using the old testament to prove a New Testament idea, now you claim Paul and the apostles did this very thing…

My apologies…it was Cradle Catholic who dissed the Old Testament, not you.  The point remains valid however.  If scripture is the only source of Truth, and half of Scripture was missing, then what did Paul and the Apostles use?  You say they used Jesus, but when the Catholic Church claims the same thing, you cry foul.  What Paul and the apostles did by using Jesus, and what he knew about Him and His teachings…when Paul and the Apostles use the gifts they were empowered with by Jesus Himself…they are doing exactly what the Catholic Church is doing.  Using OTHER SOURCES for their Truth.  Using TRADITION!

mk writes-“BTW, when I ask for a source, this does not qualify.

<i>Scholarly and the church itself looks at these works as fictions.<i>

Your word is not a source. You need to show me something reputable that states that the church herself looks at these works as fictions.  Otherwise I’ll feel free to quote myself as proof of something.”
Let me give you a couple of RCC sources on this issue:”‘The first express witness in the West to a genuine assumption comes to us in an apocryphal Gospel, the Transitus Beatae Mariae of Pseudo–Melito’ (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 149). Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, likewise affirms these facts when he says:

The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’ (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford: Tan, 1974), pp. 209–210).

Juniper Carol explicitly states that the Transitus literature is a complete fabrication which should be rejected by any serious historian:

The account of Pseudo-Melito, like the rest of the Transitus literature, is admittedly valueless as history, as an historical report of Mary’s death and corporeal assumption; under that aspect the historian is justified in dismissing it with a critical distaste (Juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. l (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), p. 150).”

Although the topic is directly about the assumption of Mary which does not have biblical support it also does not have historical support either. The protoevanglium of James would also be considered part of the
Transitus literature.

Have you studied the history of this? Did the RCC have a major part in this? Was the RCC corrupt or not? It was these issues that the reformers were responding to.

The Church is independent of her members.  Were the clergy at that time corrupt???  Absolutely!  But pointing that out and therefore dismissing the “Church Herself” as corrupt is like pointing to the Army of God and dismissing all “evangelicals”. 

The Church is a living breathing “who”.  Her members however, are human beings.  Every member at any given time, is capable of sin.  Jesus did not promise that the church would remain incorrupt.  He only promised that she would not perish.  This is why I asked you if you understood the real meaning of infallibility.  You never answered (which is understandable, since we’ve asked each other 40,000 questions! lol)

The point is that Luther was wrong to “Break” the church.  God promised that He would protect her, EVEN from Herself.  In good time, She would have self corrected.  Luther was impatient.  And you see the results.

He may have been right to point out the churches corruption, but where he went wrong is when he took matters into his own hands.  This is the failing of ALL human beings.  They think they know better than God.  It’s just like Abraham.  He figured God wasn’t working fast enough so he fornicated with Hagar.  Had he just been patient and waited for God to do His thing, we might not have the situation in Israel today.

It’s the sin of Eve.  And Adam.  We aren’t satisfied with being FOR God, we want to BE God.  Luther suffered from the sin of pride.  Unfortunately, he took down a lot of souls with him.

mk writes-“Luther was wrong to add to Scripture.

Luther was wrong about a lot of things.  But put that aside.  Why do you think Luther felt he needed to add the word “alone”?  If it was “plain text” and easily understood by everyone, then why would he need to change the words to prove his point?

Because his point was invalid.  That’s why.  He needed to add words to confirm his own personal opinion.  When we disagree with scripture (on this you are right) WE need to change our understanding to fit scripture, we don’t change scripture to fit our understanding.

No one, previous to Luther, EVER thought that we were saved by faith alone.  Why?  Because it’s NOT in scripture.  When the idea was first proposed, Luther had to rewrite scripture and remove books, lest people point out that his idea was erroneous!

You cannot claim plain text, easily understood by everyone, explicit for doctrine and then base your entire faith on something that is not plain text, easily understood or explicit!”
Faith alone is taught in Scripture. It is by faith alone in Christ alone that saves us. Our works are a demonstration of that faith but they do not cause us to be saved nor keep us saved. John 3:16 and Eph 2:8-9 are clear that it is only by faith we are saved.

You know, you’ve spoken a lot about Catholics not being Christ centered.  All we have done so far is debate theological doctrines.  I wonder how you come to the conclusion that I am enthralled with my “institution” and not at all concerned about the person of Jesus.  That’s quite an assumption!  You know nothing about me.  Right off the bat you guys came out swinging claiming we don’t read scripture or know our faith and I think the Catholics on this blog have proven you wrong on both counts.  Now you claim to know that I only love the Institution of the Church.  That seems kind of arrogant to me.  I have no doubt that you LOVE Jesus with all your heart.  That has never even entered my mind.  So I wonder why you would draw that conclusion about Catholics.  Are there some lukewarm catholics?  Sure.  There’s lukewarm everything.  There’s everything from the heretical Pelosi’s to the Christmas/Easter crowd.  But there are also millions of devoted, fire filled, holy, loving, intense Catholics who are every bit as in LOVE with God as you are.  Many of them right here on this blog.

By all means, mk, the correct response of the church was to hunt down Luther by putting a bounty on his head to have him killed.  Would not Jesus have engaged him in the discussion?

Your position is that the Roman church can do no wrong and cannot be corrected at any time.  And the constant references to “Catholic” writers and theologians —well, they are opinions of men.  The Scripture is the inspired Word of God.  Maybe you missed that class when Sr. Mary was teaching you in your parish grammar school.  Or maybe she, too, failed to really believe it.

mk writes ” Faithful wroted-Have you studied the history of this? Did the RCC have a major part in this? Was the RCC corrupt or not? It was these issues that the reformers were responding to.”

mk writes-“The Church is independent of her members.  Were the clergy at that time corrupt???  Absolutely!  But pointing that out and therefore dismissing the “Church Herself” as corrupt is like pointing to the Army of God and dismissing all “evangelicals”.”
The church is independent of her members? You can’t be serious..The church is made up of its members. The leaders of the RCC at the time were corrupting the gospel and that is why Christ raised up Luther and the reformers to counter this.

mk- writes-”...This is why I asked you if you understood the real meaning of infallibility.  You never answered (which is understandable, since we’ve asked each other 40,000 questions! lol)...”
Infalliblity means inability to err in teaching revealed truth. Would this be correct?
Asking questions is a good way to gain a better understanding of each other. I would rather dialogue than preach at someone.

Mary was a human being.  Honor her and respect her.
However, her own “Magnificat” declares her need to be saved
by a savior.  This means she, too, was a sinner just like
every other human being.  The Catholic church has taken much
too great a license and leap in the elevation of Mary to co-diety.

mk writes-“The point is that Luther was wrong to “Break” the church.  God promised that He would protect her, EVEN from Herself.  In good time, She would have self corrected.  Luther was impatient.  And you see the results.

He may have been right to point out the churches corruption, but where he went wrong is when he took matters into his own hands.  This is the failing of ALL human beings.  They think they know better than God.”
I don’t for a second believe Luther was wrong. If he was the Lord Jesus would have put a stop to it. In fact i think Acts 5:33-39 applies here.
The RCC was becoming to powerful in a worldly way and they were obscuring the gospel with doctrines such as purgatory, indulgences and works.

mk- writes- “Contradictions, contradictions, contradictions.

First you say that doctrine should be EXPLICTLY illustrated in scripture, then you say this doctrine is implied.  WHERE does it say explicitly that Scripture ALONE is our source of Truth?  No one is disputing that every idea in scripture is true.  The question was, where does it say in scripture that Scripture ALONE is the ONLY source of Truth?”
I never said the Scriptures alone were the only source of Truth but that they alone are inspired-inerrant by God. They have their source in God Himself.

mk writes-“The apostles used the OT and were used directly by Christ and empowered by Christ Himself.

First, how could the apostles subscribe to Scripture Only while at the same time use other sources?
Earlier you refuted using the old testament to prove a New Testament idea, now you claim Paul and the apostles did this very thing…”
Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

mk writes “For example, those before 400 for example did not believe in Mary’s assumption or sinlessness.

Of course they did.  source please?”
” The Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy concedes that, ‘there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it ...’ (Eamon Duffy, What Catholics Believe About Mary (London: Catholic Truth Society, 1989), p. 17). For centuries in the early Church there is complete silence regarding Mary’s end. The first mention of it is by Epiphanius in 377 A.D. and he specifically states that no one knows what actually happened to Mary. He lived near Palestine and if there were, in fact, a tradition in the Church generally believed and taught he would have affirmed it. But he clearly states that ‘her end no one knows.’ These are his words:
But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death; they will not find whether she died or did not die; they will not find whether she was buried or was not buried ... Scripture is absolutely silent [on the end of Mary] ... For my own part, I do not dare to speak, but I keep my own thoughts and I practice silence ... The fact is, Scripture has outstripped the human mind and left [this matter] uncertain ... Did she die, we do not know ... Either the holy Virgin died and was buried ... Or she was killed ... Or she remained alive, since nothing is impossible with God and He can do whatever He desires; for her end no-one knows.’ (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by juniper Carol, O.F.M. ed., Mariology, Vol. II (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1957), pp. 139-40).”

Our works are a demonstration of that faith but they do not cause us to be saved nor keep us saved. John 3:16 and Eph 2:8-9 are clear that it is only by faith we are saved.

You can keep quotin’ John and Eph until the cows come home, but you still are not showing me where it says faith ALONE!!!!

I on the other hand have provide scripture that clearly, explicitly, in plain text shows that we are NOT saved by faith alone.  How do you do that?  Just dismiss the texts that refute what you say?  It boggles the mind.

John 3:16   For God so loved the world that he gave 7 his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.

*sigh*

Where does it say “So that everyone who believes in him and does nothing else whatsoever” might not perish?

Eph 2:8-9   For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God it is not from works, so no one may boast.

This is an argument that WORKS alone will not get you into heaven.  You cannot work your way there. No One is disputing that.  I’ve already stated that works will not get you there.  Our salvation IS a gift from God.  We do not, can not earn it.  But we also cannot separate our works from our faith. 

What Paul and James actually wrote:

  * Galatians 2:16 - “Yet we know that a person is justified not by the works of the law but through faith in/of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in/of Christ, and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.” (see all of Gal 2:15—3:14)
  * Romans 3:28 - “For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.” (see all of Rom 3:21—4:25)
  * James 2:24, 26 - “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone… For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.” (see all of James 2:14-26)

The common but incorrect interpretation, leading to an apparent contradiction between Paul and James:

  * Paul supposedly said:  Justification comes not by our good works, but by our faith in Jesus alone.
  * James supposedly said:  Justification comes by our good works, not by our faith in God.

Errors with these interpretations:

  1. Paul is not talking about “good works” in the sense of “charitable acts”; rather, he says “works of the Law” (Gal 2:16; 3:2-12; Rom 3:28), which refers to the Jewish/Mosaic laws on circumcision, sacrifices, dietary restrictions, etc.
        When James says “works,” he means acts of charity = care for widows, orphans & the poor, love for neighbors, etc. (James 1:27; 2:8; 2:15-16)
  2. Paul is not opposed to “good works” or “charitable actions”; he sees them as necessary consequences (although not the foundation) of authentic Christian living (see Gal 5–6; Rom 12–15).
        Conversely, James is not opposed to faith; he presupposes it, and then stresses that authentic faith must be put into action (James 2:14-26).
  3. Paul is not talking primarily about our “faith in Jesus,” but rather the “faith of Jesus” in God (i.e., Jesus’ own trusting in God; see Gal 2:16, 20; Rom 3:22, 26); based on this foundation, our faith in God/Jesus is a necessary (but secondary) response.
        In contrast, James does mean people’s faith, primarily believing in God (2:23) but also believing in Jesus (2:1).
  4. Paul does not presuppose the same definition of “faith” as James does; for Paul, “faith” means “trusting” God, or “entrusting oneself” to God’s plans (Rom 4:3-22).
        For James, “faith” is more of an intellectual assent to theological truths, e.g., “believing that God is one” (2:19; even demons can “believe” in God’s existence).
  5. Paul did not write the word “alone” in Rom 3:28; Martin Luther was the one who added the word “allein” in his German Bible translation.
        James does not write “by works alone” but stresses “not by faith alone”; he maintains that both have to go together.

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Paul-James.htm

Paul is saying that the Old Testament Laws will no longer work.  That salvation comes from accepting Jesus, something we do from Grace.  He is not saying that you don’t have to “do good things”.

Your position is that the Roman church can do no wrong and cannot be corrected at any time

hahahahahha….if only that were true!

“For example, those before 400 for example did not believe in Mary’s assumption or sinlessness.

Your claim was that they did not believe…as Eamon Duffy points out, we have no way of knowing what they believed.  There is nothing written on it before 377.  This is a far cry from claiming to know that they did NOT believe it.  And this does not address her sinlessness.

Also, we are not claiming that she didn’t “die” a human death.  We only claim that her body, because it was already perfect and had no need of glorification as ours will, was taken up along with her soul. 

Our souls will be taken to heaven and we will be given “new” bodies.  Perfected bodies.  This was not necessary for Mary as she was already spotless.  This is what the Assumption means…

Elijah was also assumed, body and soul, into heaven.

As for why would Mary need a savior…she was born without original sin, yes, but ONLY because Jesus died on the cross.  He is the reason she was able to be conceived without sin…hence, He is her savior also.

mk writes-“My apologies…it was Cradle Catholic who dissed the Old Testament, not you.  The point remains valid however.  If scripture is the only source of Truth, and half of Scripture was missing, then what did Paul and the Apostles use?  You say they used Jesus, but when the Catholic Church claims the same thing, you cry foul.  What Paul and the apostles did by using Jesus, and what he knew about Him and His teachings…when Paul and the Apostles use the gifts they were empowered with by Jesus Himself…they are doing exactly what the Catholic Church is doing.  Using OTHER SOURCES for their Truth.  Using TRADITION!”
Lots here. First the apostles are unique. They are like the OT prophets who were used directly by God to communicate directly to the Jews. The apostles are like that also. They were empowered in a special and unique way in revealing revelation that bishops do not possess. After the apostles died, revelation has ceased. Now the church is to build up the body of Christ by what Jesus and the apostles taught. They are not to go beond what is written.
Now, can you tell me what TRADITION is? What are some examples?

I never said the Scriptures alone were the only source of Truth but that they alone are inspired-inerrant by God. They have their source in God Himself.

Isn’t that your whole argument against the Catholic Church?  That if it’s not scriptural, it ain’t worth lookin’ at?

Out with Tradition?

If you do not believe that Scripture is the final Authority, and that nothing else is it’s equal, then what the heck is Sola Scriptura?

If you do believe it, and as you have stated, you believe that doctrine should be based on explicit, easily understood and plain text, then how do you rationalize the doctrine of Sola Scriptura when it is neither Scriptural, explicit, easily understood or plain text?

After the apostles died, revelation has ceased

This is not being refuted.  As a matter of fact I corrected a catholic on here for claiming that new things can be revealed.

Where I disagree is that those special powers died with the apostles.  They passed them on.  Paul was not an apostle.  He was not one of the twelve and yet HE was given the same special powers and he passed them on to other disciples.

Some examples?  Excellent question. My son has a Drs appt so I can’t research right now, but I will.  Soon.  Promise.

mk writes “I never said the Scriptures alone were the only source of Truth but that they alone are inspired-inerrant by God. They have their source in God Himself.

Isn’t that your whole argument against the Catholic Church?  That if it’s not scriptural, it ain’t worth lookin’ at?

Out with Tradition?”
What i’m saying is that:
1) only the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant
2) all doctrines and practices that are binding and true must be based on the clear teaching of Scripture
3) any doctrine or practice that cannot be supported by Scripture are the teachings of men. They are non-apostolic.
4) all doctrines must be tested by Scripture.

I’m still trying to figure out exactly what Tradition is.

mk writes- “After the apostles died, revelation has ceased

This is not being refuted.  As a matter of fact I corrected a catholic on here for claiming that new things can be revealed.

Where I disagree is that those special powers died with the apostles.  They passed them on.  Paul was not an apostle.  He was not one of the twelve and yet HE was given the same special powers and he passed them on to other disciples.”
What “special powers”? It certainly was not the office of an apostle and the authority it carried.

mk—your passion to defend anything and everything connected to Catholicism is misguided.  What man of God (Church Fathers) would be so prideful as to hold their hand out so the “faithful” could kiss their ring?  Surely that is a sin of pride for even Peter urged men in ACTS to not kneel before him since they were ONLY men.  Our bishops could take a page and learn humility from Peter.

FAITHFUL- Your post on Mon. 8/9 at 12:26PM is profound.  I pray some bishop is reading this blog, and he will use your FOUR points to be the basis of the US Bishops Conference held this fall.  You are 100% correct.

NEWSNEWS - You aked me on 8/8 at 7:26PM if Jesus would allow the Church Fathers to be wrong in their teaching to us.  YES.  We are all imperfect and we CAN err.  This is why we are told to “test the spirits and hold fast to what is true.”  Jesus allowed PETER to err, and that’s why Paul confronted him and the other apostles at the Council of Jerusalem.  Paul’s opinion prevailed, and it was James (bishop of Jerusalem) that gave the news of the council’s decision.

As for Tradition and how it came about - I learned from a priest that the Bible came together due to the UNIVERSAL CHURCH at the time, ALL using the texts, and ‘approving’ of what would be in the Bible.

I think Luther was wrong to take books out of the Bible, that said, it’s my personal opinion he did that so as to not mislead people.  We ARE saved by Faith, by God’s grace, and FOR good works.  James has it right on target. 

I think it’s important to recognize that the REAL Church is an invisible church of Jesus - and beyond denomination.  That’s why it’s good the Angllicans of like mind are joining the Roman Church - and the need for bishops to concentrate on all the FOUR POINTS so beautifully outlined in Faithful’s post!  Way to go, Faithful! 

... and I love MK’s comments too - a sincere heart & IRON SHARPENS IRON!

Okay,

I emailed my priest and here’s his answer to what are some othe Traditions handed down…

Two of the biggest examples of things that have come to us through Tradition are the terms “incarnation” and “Trinity”.  These words are not found in Scripture, but every Christian faith acknowledges their importance.  Also, the doctrines about Mary, such as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, come to us from Tradition.  And keep in mind, Tradition not only refers to teachings that have come down to us from the apostles, but also refers to those things that have been believed by Christians throughout the Church’s history, even if they were not written in stone since the beginning of the Church (e.g., the seven sacraments were not fully defined until the 16th century, but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t practiced or believed by the Church prior to that).

The important point is that Scripture and Tradition go together, so the doctrines that have come down to us from Tradition are at least implied in the Scriptures.

Now I can’t answer for him and I’m not going to go back and forth asking him stuff…we’ve already got enough on our plate here. 

I agree with you that Scripture must “back up” Tradition.  But I think I’d phrase it more like Tradition cannot contradict Scripture.

The fact that you believe in the Trinity, means that you too adhere to Catholic Teaching/Tradition. 

As for the powers…I mean the power to baptize, confirm, exorcise demons, consecrate the bread and wine, hear confessions…We believe these are reserved for priests alone (with the exception of baptism in extraordinary circumstances).  These are the sacraments, something else we disagree with.  Even protestant churches cannot agree on how many there are, and some don’t even believe that Baptism is a sacrament.

I also think that we have differing views on how a sacrament works.

Thanks Cradle,

As I said…this is challenging and it’s forcing me to define and defend a lot of things I had never really thought about before.  It sure does get the blood goin’!!!!

mk writes-“I emailed my priest and here’s his answer to what are some othe Traditions handed down…

Two of the biggest examples of things that have come to us through Tradition are the terms “incarnation” and “Trinity”.  These words are not found in Scripture, but every Christian faith acknowledges their importance.  Also, the doctrines about Mary, such as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, come to us from Tradition.  And keep in mind, Tradition not only refers to teachings that have come down to us from the apostles, but also refers to those things that have been believed by Christians throughout the Church’s history, even if they were not written in stone since the beginning of the Church (e.g., the seven sacraments were not fully defined until the 16th century, but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t practiced or believed by the Church prior to that).”
Let’s look at a couple of specific examples that you bring up. Did the church believe the doctrines about Mary for centuries? There were church fathers who believed that Mary did sin. In regards to the assumption the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the first “genuine” written references to the Assumption come from authors who lived in the sixth to the eight centuries:
“If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first.”1
St. Gregory lived in the sixth century, while St John Damascene belongs to the eight. Thus for several centuries in the early Church, there is no mention by the church fathers of the bodily assumption of Mary. Ireneus, Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose and the others church fathers said nothing about it. Writing in 377 A.D., the church father Epiphanius states that no-one knows Mary’s end.2
1.  (St. Gregory of Tours lived in the 6th Century; St. Andrew of Crete, St. Modestus of Jerusalem lived in the 7th Century; St. John Damascene lived in the 8th Century.
2.  “But if some think us mistaken, let them search the Scriptures. They will not find Mary’s death…for her end no-one knows.” (Epiphanius, Panarion, Haer. 78.10-11, 23. Cited by Juniper Carol, OFM, Mariology, vol. II, pp. 139-40).

What this means then that this “Tradition” has no basis in Scripture and history. It also means that early did not believe in them. This was not believed throughout church history. Do you know if there is an official list of Traditions in the RCC?

The “assumption” is in church tradition?  This was not adopted until the mid 1950’s.  Probably some “theologian” (??) sitting around with too much time on his hands.  As far a communion being the exclusive domain of Catholic priests —does that mean Christ is NOT present when other Christian churches have their worship services on Sunday?  That is not what Jesus said.  “Whenever 2 or more gather in MY name ... “

The “assumption” is in church tradition?  This was not adopted until the mid 1950’s.  Probably some “theologian” (??) sitting around with too much time on his hands.  As far a communion being the exclusive domain of Catholic priests —does that mean Christ is NOT present when other Christian churches have their worship services on Sunday?  That is not what Jesus said.  “Whenever 2 or more gather in MY name ... ”—

mk writes -“On some issues it has been shown she has been false.

And on whose authority have you decided that these have been shown to be false?  Scripture?  And who gave us scripture.  You can’t have it both ways.

Either the Church (AGAIN…NOT the RCC but the CC) was given authority and what it binds is bound, or it was not.  Authority means authority.  It doesn’t mean sometimes it’s right, sometimes it’s wrong.  If God gave that authority to the Church, then you either trust God’s judgment, or you don’t.”
Why is authority necessary to determine if something is false? The Scriptures warn of false teachers in letters written to churches. Do you think you have a responsiblity to be on guard against error if it is taught by your church even if it claims to be infallible?

Mk writes-“
Show when we show you the “concept” of Mary being favored over all humanity, and point to historical precedence of Mothers of Kings being Queen, we are in error. But you can point to “concepts” and read into scripture what isn’t there?  Sort of hypocritical, don’t you think?”
Mary was favored to bring Christ into the world. The problem with Mary being His queen has no support in the NT. None of the writers of the NT ever refer to her as such. When I speak of faith alone I can point you to specific and explicit passages that only mention faith as a necessary condition for salvation. Clearly Paul is teaching this in Romans 5:1 and Eph 2:8-9.

Mk writes-“
“I have never, not once, said that we are not saved by faith. What I said is that we are not saved by faith ALONE.  And we are not.  Faith MUST go hand in hand with works.  They are inseparable.  Just as Jesus is inseparable from God.  Works won’t get you into heaven.  Faith won’t get you into heaven.  Only faith and works together will get you into heaven.
Perhaps we are disagreeing on what “works” are?”
Do the works you do have “meritious” value i.e. you are rewarded for doing them? Do they contribute in keeping you saved in that if you stop doing them you will no longer be saved?

To Faithful:  YOU are dead on.  We are saved “unto” good works.  The RCC teaches by faith “and” good works.  That is salvation by works.  Thus, mk would have us believe there is a threshold of how many good works must I do to attain the required good works for salvation?

To Faithful:  You are also correct.  It is not rebellious to point out error in the church which needs correction IF Scripture supports that correction.  Yes, we are to be on guard against apostacy.  It is no wonder some non Catholics believe apostacy is evident within the Roman church due to the license Catholics have taken on matters of faith.  When a position does not line up with God’s Word —we must use the Word as the final authority.  Not the “opinions” of clergy in Rome.

Thank you to The Catholic Register editors for providing this wonderful forum for Catholics to share our faith candidly & politely talk!  After Sunday Mass is over, and everyone enjoys donut holes & coffee, it’s my experience that we all bolt out.  Attempts to discuss faith, in a casual, non-combative way is impossible.  So to the editors – Thank You!

MK 8/9 at 2:25PM: Thank you & your parish priest for providing feedback to the questions that came up.  I agree with your observation- you reduced it to a simple: “Tradition cannot contradict Scripture.” – Well put!

The “Universal Church” (catholic, small C) has no denomination.  I think it’s an “Invisible Church” – a Body of believers in Jesus, and as MK pointed out, in the Trinity.  I was at an Anglican Church for a Sunday service, and was astounded by the reverence with which they worship.  They believe exactly what Roman Catholics believe, in the essentials.

In Missouri Synod Lutheran churches, parishioners must REGISTER for Communion, confirming in writing they believe it is the Body and Blood of Jesus that they are taking.  Actually, many of these other Christian denominations reminded me of pre-Vatican II Roman Catholics.  I only visited.  I am a life-time, practicing Catholic, and conservative, agreeing with the 5 non-negotiables suggested by Catholic Answers!

There is an acrostic about Christian faith essentials based on the word: VARIES:
To be Christian, one must believe—the Virgin birth, Atonement, Resurrection, Incarnation, Eschatology, and the primacy of Scripture. …Eschatology – Jesus coming again.

As for non-essentials, Eastern denominations in communion with Rome have ‘traditions’ that differ from Rome.  For instance, in the Latin rite, no priest can have a wife.  But in Eastern rites, priests can have a wife, but bishops must be single.  The practices differ from what Paul wrote to Timothy & Titus- the ideal bishop should have grown children, and have been married.

With all due respect for the Blessed Mother, as for Mary being Queen, and sinless – I offer to this discussion:

1-  In her Magnificat, Mary herself said, “…My soul rejoices in God, my SAVIOR.”  Only sinners need a savior.
2-  In Revelation, when John was in Heaven, looking for someone ‘worthy’ to open the Scroll, he found none.  Only Jesus was found to be worthy, not Mary.
3-  Scripture says, “There is none righteous, NO NOT ONE.” And “ALL have sinned…” there is no exception for Mary.

Mary was favored by God, and given ‘grace’, which is God’s UNMERITED favor.  It was nothing she did - it was all from God, as with everything else, “…so no man can boast.”

[This is the first post I’m doing with a cut and paste, and hope it all appears well.]

I am so hoping you guys are still around.  I emailed the editors and they graciously reopened comments!  Hooray!!!! 

If you’re all still there, are you up for continuing?

Yes, thank you to the editors for allowing the continuing dialog.
Catholics, Protestants and Evangelicals must bring their “brains” to
such discussion and not simply just “fall in line” with church hierarchy.  It is amazing that we laity are the ones having dialog among familiy and friends whom are members of other Christian or non-denominational churches, however —it is our RC clergy who cloister themselves and refuse to even speak with fellow clergy of local Christian churches.

Do the works you do have “meritious” value i.e. you are rewarded for doing them? Do they contribute in keeping you saved in that if you stop doing them you will no longer be saved?

Works are a show of faith.  Do you honestly believe that if someone claims to acknowledges in their heart that they have given their lives over to Jesus, and then go out and sin, knowing full well that that is what they are doing, not asking forgiveness, that they will still enter heaven?

Prayer is a form of works.  Following the commandments is a form of works.  Helping the sick, feeding the hungry etc.

There are wonderful atheists in the world that do great works of charity.  But they do not believe.  They will most likely not enter heaven.

There are people who claim to love Jesus who don’t lift a finger in his aid.  They will most likely not enter heaven.

You can’t work your way there, but you also can’t “wish” your way there.

The two go hand in hand.

(James 2:14-20 NIV) {14} What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? {15} Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. {16} If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? {17} In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. {18} But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. {19} You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. {20} You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

When Paul says that we are not saved by works, consider the context.  He is rebuking Jews for clinging to the old notion that if only they follow the “Law”, ie circumcision, to a “T”, they will remain in God’s favor.  Paul is saying “NO”.  It’s not about the Law anymore.  It’s a gift given to those that ask for it.  But he is not implying that simply asking is enough.

Again, there are many things that Jesus says you must do to enter heaven.

John 6:53-55   Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
  Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
  For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56

AND

Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” John 3:3,5

Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes in me will do the works that I do, and will do greater ones than these, because I am going to the Father.  John 14:12

KR,

Hello…hello.  Thrilled you’re here.

I’ve been wanting to clear something up.  First, I promise you with my whole heart that I DO NOT take everything the church “says” and accept it.  I do however take Church Teaching…Official Teaching and trust it, because I believe that GOD Himself, promised that the Holy SPirit would keep it from error.  Not keep the pope from error.  Not keep priests from error.  Not keep the layity from error.  Only the infallible statements that define dogma and doctrine.  I trust what God said.

That said, oh how I wish I could trust what every priest says.  Sadly this is not the case.  I agree with you on one point.  Our Bishops, priests and deacons are failing up miserably.  Not all of them, but many. 

I often tell people not to trust what a priest says unless he is over 75 or under 35.  And I’m only half joking.  The period in the 70’s was a baaaaaad time for the formation of priests.  This is the same period where we find the clergy abuse of today.  Some nasty seeds were sown and it is only now, with the younger seminarians, that things are finally coming around.

Even popes in the past have been pretty shady.  But in matters of faith and morals?  They were unable to damage the Church at her heart.  She is protected.  Thank God!

But I cannot base my faith on the sins of others who believe the same.  No matter how “bad” a priest may be as a person, he can still bring me my Jesus in the Eucharist.  He can still absolve me of my sins.  That doesn’t change, because it is a sacrament and does not rely on the priest himself to be valid.

A sacrament to us is permanent.  It is something that is done TO us.  It changes us.  You cannot undo a sacrament.  It would be like trying to reclaim your virginity.  Can’t be done. 

So no matter how unsavory a particular priest may be, he is still a priest.  How can I not be thankful that he miraculously turns bread and wine into My Lord?  How can I not stand in awe of that gift?

MK, I would never doubt your sincerity —and if receiving the Eucharist brings you “at one” and closer to Christ —then wonderful.  Amen.  I only wish to point out that many Catholics and other Christians do not necessarily have the same zeal you feel.  Receiving communion is not a condition of salvation.  Thus, whether you received communion 500 times or 5,000 times in your lifetime does not elevate your status before the Lord.  To base one’s salvation on the # of times you went to mass or received communion are “works” —and that is legalism.  This is what Jesus engaged the Jewish leaders about —their laws and “works” for salvation.

And why are our priests so afraid to talk with local ministers and engage them in similar discussions?

MK - You’re brilliant!  What a terrific idea it was to ask the editors to re-open this discussion.  Thank you, to you, and to them, for honoring your request!  In the future, I will always use the Word program and then cut and paste it into the comment box, so that the computer doesn’t time out.

1) Re: Faith and Works - I think it’s simple.  Works is the result of having faith.  It’s like we can give to someone without loving them.  But it is impossible to love someone without giving to them.  When we love Jesus, what is important to Him becomes important to us, and we follow Him- being His hands and feet in the world.  It is the FRUIT of our faith.

2) Re: clergy/hierarchy that are, for lack of better words, left of center- I think it is in 2nd Peter that warns us to be careful of false teachers, because “there will be some among you” -

3)KR - Re: priests that do not want to enter into discussions with Protestant clergy and lay people.  In many instances, I think it’s fear.  Much of what is taught in seminaries is not valuable for helping souls to know Christ.  I asked a priest I like very much, “What is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?” and he responded, “It’s part of the charismatic movement.”  - this, while just a few weeks earlier, the readings were about that.

And for the record - I do not speak in tongues.  I pray in English.  So by mentioning this, I’m not trying to derail this discussion into any other territory.  It is a small minority of Catholics that are part of the ‘Charismatic Movement’.  Frankly, I wish they’d just speak English too, and we can all LEARN more about our faith from the Bible.

Jeff Cavin’s has a good Catholic Bible study for parishes - I took his 24 week introduction course at a local parish.  It was great.

Of course, it is vitally important to receive the Eucharist, that is to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus, since Jesus Himself said that unless you do so “you shall not have life in you.” He kept repeating this over and over even when the Jews argued and said, ” How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” and “This is a hard saying. Who can listen to it?,” and left Him, never to walk with Him. Only the twelve remained. Even then, Jesus did not say to them that He is talking in parables and not literally. Instead He asked them whether they too wished to leave (St. John 6: 51-68).

Not a word about being born again in water and the spirit to gain eternal life, as when He spoke to Nicodemus. That is because, that requirement has already been mentioned and now Jesus lays down another requirement as important as being baptised in water and the spirit.

Charitable works are another requirement necessary to gain eternal life - just look at what happens at the last judgement to the people who did not do them. They will go into everlasting punishment (St. Matthew 25:46).

And for those who believe the nonsense ‘once saved always saved,’ the chastisement of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew 7: 21-23 to those who are damned (On that day many will say to me ‘Lord, Lord’...) and 25: 41-46 (goats on the left) must not be appearing as everlasting punishment. How foolish you are!

Now a Sorcerer’s Apprentice will point to the penitent thief on the cross who did not go through water baptism, did not receive the Eucharist and had no charitable works and say that he was saved. Of course he was saved. God is sovereign. He is not bound by the requirements imposed on us. The giver of the law is above the law. God can save whomever He chooses. He is not answerable to the law. We are.

It is an astounding error to hold that, to be saved, one need to believe only some things that Jesus said. Exegesis without context is meaningless.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen. (2 Cor. 13:13)

Terry writes, “You appear to be saying that to be saved one must read the Scriptures.”  Terry, a person does not need to know how to read in order to be saved.  I know a pastor who read the Bible regularly to a grandmother who could not read.  Many people in her family came to know the Lord as a result. 

You are quite correct in quoting Matt 7:21-23 and commenting that there are people who will not be saved.  The context indicates that these people are false teachers and prophets.  Even though they are doing things in Jesus’ name, they are not saved.

If false teachers in sheep’s clothing come our way, how can we determine whether they are telling the truth?

Terry, so charitable “works” are a requirement?  Really?  How many charitable works are required?  Give me the number, please !!! so that I may also be saved!!!  Hogwash.  My works are as filthy rags.  I am saved only—only by the blood of the Lamb at the cross and my acceptance of His atonement for my sins.  You live in doubt all your life because you fear you can lose your salvation.  I can tell you —once sealed, you are saved.  Always saved.  You have no eternal security with your kind of thinking.  You may be under the water BUT you seem to be not under the blood yet in your life.  Charitable works are a by-products—not a requirement.

KR makes a very important point, ” How many charitable works are required?  Give me the number, please !!! so that I may also be saved!!!”  As long as we are under a system of doing works to get to heaven, we will never know whether we are saved.  In contrast the Apostle John says we can know, and he says it is based upon believing (John 20:31; 1 John 5:13.  Incidentally, if we think we will get to heaven based in whole or in part on our works, we should be mindful that works must include not only the bad things we do that we should not have done, but also good things we should have done but never did.  The standard is lightyears beyond what any man or woman can accomplish except for the man Christ Jesus.

KR1000

That is what Jesus says. You did not do it when it was required, like feeding the hungry. Otherwise why are these people cast out?

As for number of works, in the parable of talents it is the one who did nothing who is punished. No limit was placed on others.

Twelve Oaks—excellent points you also make.  Those who accept Terry’s comment and choose Papal tradition need only point to Peter —the first Pope.  In ACTS, Peter says:  “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ an you shall be saved.”  More importantly, Jesus told Nicodemus:  “You MUST be born again.”  When a man or woman is saved, there is no doubt.  Ever.
If Terry is unsure re his salvation, then he needs to be saved.  Then he will have eternal security.  People keep trying to build layers of intellectualism around this and make it more complicated.  We are no longer in Catholic grammar school being taught by well-meaning nuns.  Jesus expects us to think as adults.

Some good links for anyone struggling with the idea of “eternal security”:

Once Saved, Always Saved.

John 3:16 and eternal security.

God bless.

Thank you for your concern.

I was an athiest, agonstic, protestant etc.

I am thankful for the Lord for the Catholic Church. All others preach part truth and part hogwash. Partial truth cannot be the Truth!

Terry, I appreciate your sincerity.  I too, am in the RCC.  However, we cannot be blindly led and bow down to everything we hear.  Test what you are hearing against what the Word says for good measure.  Any church which preaches the full Gospel —not a partial Gospel is a Bible believing church with Christ at the center.  Worship where the Word is truly taught.  If it is in the RCC,—then fine.  There is no perfect church nor are there perfect pastors since we are members of that church.  We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Dear 12 Oaks:

They are false prophets? How do you know? The passage (Mat. 7: 21-23) does not say that. You say the context indicates that. What is the context?

And having made the judgement, you ask how to know if one is telling the truth? This must be a protestant technique.

Not only that,  how does a person know that one is certain of salvation, not a false prophet even though doing mighty works, if once saved is always saved? That was MY POINT! Not yours!!

Dear KR1000:

There is no perfect church? This is like saying Jesus is not perfect.

The true church has to be perfect because the church is the work of the Holy Spirit. People in the church may be something else. In teaching matters of Faith and Morals, the church must be perfect. No error.

The Holy Spirit abides in the church (only in the One Church) and does not simply come and go. He does that in other churches. Note that in the Old Testament He spoke even through a donkey!

Jesus had the harshest words for teachers who taught error. “You err because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” (St. Matthew 22:29). He is addressing the highest teaching authority of Israel.

Terry, I will not speak for Tweleve Oaks, but here is my own take.  The RCC teaches faith + works lead to salvation.  It is your faith alone which places a desire within you to accomplish good works in the name of Christ.  You are not saved by your works because that would be prideful thing to “think” you are earning your way.  The actual work was already done for you by Jesus at the cross.  The works we do are out of our gratitude for the price Jesus paid to earn our salvation.  My sins were a debt I could not pay for.  His works paid for my debt.  Our works earn us nothing.  They only reflect our gratitude to the Lord for saving us.

So, Terry, I assume at your parish there are no sinners in your church?
The Pastor and his associates are all perfect, sinless human beings?
If true, the Bishop of your diocese should then model the other parishes in the diocese to be like yours and then your bishop would be out of a job.

Why do we need a church, then?  If there are no sinners at your church then why do you attend church?  The world is filled with sinfull and imperfect people.

Where is your parish so that I, too, may see such glory on earth?

MK-I commend you for getting this discuss on on track again and your wanting to defend the Roman Catholic faith. Hopefully more catholics will engage here. Time to take out the high blood pressure pills and the Tums:)

MK writes – “What St. Louis de Montfort was saying is that to diss Mary is to diss Jesus.  You can’t mock his mother and expect to be pals with the Man Himself.
Not to love His mother, deeply, is an insult to God.  That’s His mother you’re talkin’ about.
How do you think it makes Him feel when you trash his mum?  When you say she’s nothing special?  When you laugh at the idea that she is His Queen?
She is as responsible for your salvation as any other human being sans God Himself.  Without her?  No cross, no resurrection, no salvation.  You owe her a great deal.”
Where does Jesus Himself teach that Mary is our mother? (John 19:26-27 does not do the trick)  Secondly, are you saying that if Mary had said no there would have been no salvation?

Dear KR1000:

As I said in an earlier entry, partial truth is not Truth and cannot save. There are lots of full gospel churches that preach lots of different things. You cannot be saved through them, since they reject the teachings of the Catholic Church. In fact, they will tell you that you cannot be saved in the CC.

They can rave about Mary, saints, indulgences, confession and what not. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and all the rest down could never agree on many things for the simple reason the churches they began went by their name and so what they preached became personal to their reputation.

In the Catholic Church, we do not believe what the Fathers of the Church (Augustine, Ambrose, Aquinas etc) taught unless it is accepted into the deposit of faith. The teaching is examined, discussed, agreed and accepted and then taught in the name of the church and not in the name of a person, however erudite and famous he may be.

That is why the protestant churches with their teachings and pastors come and go. Houses made on sand!

Note that we can believe what we want but one day we will have to give an account of what we believed. If you believe what the CC teaches, on that day, you will have the Church as your Advocate. But if you believe what you think you ought, then you will have Satan as your advocate.

Welcome to the Catholic Church.

Mk writes-“ KR,
Hello…hello.  Thrilled you’re here.
I’ve been wanting to clear something up.  First, I promise you with my whole heart that I DO NOT take everything the church “says” and accept it.  I do however take Church Teaching…Official Teaching and trust it, because I believe that GOD Himself, promised that the Holy SPirit would keep it from error.  Not keep the pope from error.  Not keep priests from error.  Not keep the layity from error.  Only the infallible statements that define dogma and doctrine.  I trust what God said.”
How do you determine what “Offical Teaching” of the RCC is? There is so much to look at. For example this quote is from UBI PRIMUM
ON THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS IX
FEBRUARY 2, 1849

“Great indeed is Our trust in Mary. The resplendent glory of her merits, far exceeding all the choirs of angels, elevates her to the very steps of the throne of God.[1] Her foot has crushed the head of Satan. Set up between Christ and His Church,[2] Mary, ever lovable and full of grace, always has delivered the Christian people from their greatest calamities and from the snares and assaults of all their enemies, ever rescuing them from ruin.
5. And likewise in our own day, Mary, with the ever merciful affection so characteristic of her maternal heart, wishes, through her efficacious intercession with God, to deliver her children from the sad and grief-laden troubles, from the tribulations, the anxiety, the difficulties, and the punishments of God’s anger which afflict the world because of the sins of men. Wishing to restrain and to dispel the violent hurricane of evils which, as We lament from the bottom of Our heart, are everywhere afflicting the Church, Mary desires to transform Our sadness into joy. The foundation of all Our confidence, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, is found in the Blessed Virgin Mary. For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.[3]
Do you believe this i.e. “God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”?

Terry writes “Of course, it is vitally important to receive the Eucharist, that is to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus, since Jesus Himself said that unless you do so “you shall not have life in you.” He kept repeating this over and over even when the Jews argued and said, ” How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” and “This is a hard saying. Who can listen to it?,” and left Him, never to walk with Him. Only the twelve remained. Even then, Jesus did not say to them that He is talking in parables and not literally. Instead He asked them whether they too wished to leave (St. John 6: 51-68).”
What makes you think this passage is about the Eucharist when this passage is never referred to in any Gospel accounts on the Lord’s supper? Secondly, it the supper accounts there is no mention of eating the bread or drinking the wine leads to eternal life.

Terry-what must you believe or do to gain eternal life?

You know something, fellow Catholics?  How profound that we can engage in all this discussion. Yet, our priests in our own parishes are so ill prepared to dialong about these topics.  And frankly, 95% of the laity would not even bother to join the discussion.  The early church (when meeting in homes) no doubt debated many issues.  Today, it’s show up for mass and then go home.  Our priests and bishops have failed to address such of our disagreements within the RCC.  And the answer cannot be “because we said so —and because I am the one wearing a collar.”
Those days are over.

KR1000—maybe this can be the start of something new. I’d like to encourage anyone here to not be afraid to discuss and put what you believe on the line especially here. Since we discuss the Scriptures so much here and all of us realize how important it is I’d like to encourage Catholics and Protestants to read it and know it well. There is no greater knowledge a person can possess. It is well worth the effort to study it and make it part of your daily lives.

This dialog is awesome but TOO MUCH!
Wouldn’t it be better if comment be focussed on the subject of the article be cut off after two days and this chat-chat chat cover the far reaching (sometimes related) subject matter in another chat venue

Faithful, I agree with you.  And I have too many Christian friends loyal and committed fully to Christ to accept that they are going hell because they are not “Catholic.”  How arrogant the church has been for so long re this silly notion of the “one true church” idea.  Paul said it best that “Anyone in Christ is a new creation.”  I am talking about Christian churches which adhere to the Word.  Doctrine and dogma will always be debated and continues to be so even in the RCC.  Thank you, Faithful.

Cradle,

Yes!  Thank you to the folks who bought us more time.

As for this:

Re: Faith and Works - I think it’s simple.  Works is the result of having faith.  It’s like we can give to someone without loving them.  But it is impossible to love someone without giving to them.  When we love Jesus, what is important to Him becomes important to us, and we follow Him- being His hands and feet in the world.  It is the FRUIT of our faith.

Exactly.  The problem is that protestants take this a step further and say that you cannot lose entry into heaven.  Catholics do not believe this.  Just look at Judas.  You can reject what you once accepted.  It can work both ways.  If an atheist were to “change” his mind, he would be heaven bound, but the same applies to a Christian.  If by word or deed, you show that you are not honoring your committment, (not falling, but flaunting…think Pelosi…your dissent) then you most certainly can lose your salvation.  It doesn’t matter so much how much you do, no score card there, as it does how little you do.

I will be starting my third year (Acts) of Jeff Cavins class and I LOVE IT! 

As for priests…I really think that the batch of priests being turned out now are AMAZING.  There is a book (can’t think of the name…senior moment) that explains why the church went awry in the 70’s.  Very enlightening/Very disturbing.  I cried for a week.  But there IS hope!

Dear KR!000:

Is that what I said? I said that in TEACHING faith and morals, the church cannot teach error because truth comes from the Holy Spirit. For instance, the Apostles taught no error though they were human and imperfect because the teaching came from God. It has nothing to do with the people who, I agree with you, are not perfect.

You must come out of your protestant thinking. What the CC teaches is that no works can save, only Jesus, and the protestants who claim this are right not because it came from Luther (people were being saved long before the reformation) but the constant teaching of the CC, but then, after coming to faith, one must have works of charity to go into the kingdom and in this respect the protestants are grossly mistaken, learning the scriptures to their own misunderstanding.

Otherwise why are people referred to as goats and cast into eternal punishment for not feeding, clothing…etc.? The last judgement is about works. The degree of faith is not the issue. The people are addressing Jesus as Lord, and so are believers, but yet are being cast out (not saved). The issue of charity (works) is not about inability but about refusal to do what was commanded when having the ability to do so.

Raymond,  “This dialog is awesome but TOO MUCH!
Wouldn’t it be better if comment be focussed on the subject of the article be cut off after two days and this chat-chat chat cover the far reaching (sometimes related) subject matter in another chat venue.”  You may avoid that problem by choosing not to read these comments.  The nice thing about Catholic Register re-opening the comments is that it allows interested people to interact.  Once the comments close, they cannot do so, because their only connection at this point is through this comments section.

Well, Raymond, it’s a free blog.  Your comments are noteworthy too.  IMO, allowing the comments to continue are constructive.  In fact, they are about time.  Allowing the blog to stay open may help to educate the editors and the clergy they serve re what is really going on out here in Catholic land.

KR,

You know something, fellow Catholics?  How profound that we can engage in all this discussion.

Which is exactly what I said to the editors!  lol

But I think that just as the priests/shepherds are coming out of the seminaries on fire and ready to go, more and more Catholics are also revved up!  Consider what he 70’s did to us…as a society AND our Church.  It’s no wonder people were poorly catechized.  But I promise you, that is changing.  Ironically it is due in part to the protestants come home like Jeff Cavins and Scott Hahn. 

Also, I think WE must take some responsibility.  This is one way of evangelizing, but there are many things we could be doing.

Prayer in front of the Eucharist, not the least.

3 Cheers for you, Faithful.  You are correct.
I only joined the blog because I am finding the topic of the blog to be false.  Evangelicals I know are NOT flocking to the RCC.

Raymond writes-“This dialog is awesome but TOO MUCH!
Wouldn’t it be better if comment be focussed on the subject of the article be cut off after two days and this chat-chat chat cover the far reaching (sometimes related) subject matter in another chat venue”
You have a point but i think a lot of these strands can be tied together since they relate to what protestant to catholic will be dealing with at times. These may not be formal discussions but i think they can be profitable.

Raymond,

This dialog is awesome but TOO MUCH!
Wouldn’t it be better if comment be focussed on the subject of the article be cut off after two days and this chat-chat chat cover the far reaching (sometimes related) subject matter in another chat venue

Haha…sometimes God has other plans.  Just shows you how “HUNGRY” we all are for fellowship!

Seriously,  I don’t think anyone here intended to hijack the post…it just happened.  And I am SO grateful that it did.  I really freaked when we were just cutoff!

Stick around if you like.  If not maybe we’ll catch you on another post…

MK - Is the book, “Goodbye, Good Men” by Michael Rose?  It would explain why there are between 22-45% homosexually oriented men in our priesthood (their figures) and that was in 2005.  I’ve heard it may be up to 50% now.

... but I digress - to Raymond’s comment - I disagree completely. “Seek first to understand” and the only way to learn is to communicate.  I applaud everyone that made this forum possible.

To the comment about Mary - there is a big difference between honoring her as being the Mother of God, and recognizing the HUGE role she played in God’s plan for salvation, and making her a “Queen” and “Co-Redemptrix”
- all of which cause dissention and disunity.  We are called to be unified - in fact, that was Jesus’ prayer for our church - to be unified.

About once saved, always saved = I agree with that, per Scripture.  It is GOD that does the work, not us.  He sealed us - further, we are ADOPTED into Jesus’ family - and as adopted, we have more RIGHTS, based on the Jewish idea of adoption.  Once adopted, we cannot LOSE our rights as being in God’s family. 

About the Eucharist - if we don’t have the Holy Spirit in us when we go to Mass, we can consume a whole chalice of hosts and drink a whole chalice of His precious Blood, and we will not have any more of Jesus in us when we came to Mass.  We bring Jesus IN us - and He promises never to leave us or forsake us.  He will NOT lose anyone the Father gave Him.

Dear Faithful:

If you want to know about the teaching of CC on the Eucharist, there are many sources such as apologetic websites, books (Lamb’s Supper by Scott Hahn - a very knowledgeable and one time die hard anti catholic), the Catholic Catechism, writing of Church Fathers etc.

It would be a waste of time to give an exposition of catholic dogma in detail here. But for the one who seeks, the writings are readily available. Like what St. Augustine says ” To the one who believes, no explanation is necessary. For the one who does not, no amount of explanation is sufficient!”

Truth is indivisible.

Terry writes-“Dear Faithful:

If you want to know about the teaching of CC on the Eucharist, there are many sources such as apologetic websites, books (Lamb’s Supper by Scott Hahn - a very knowledgeable and one time die hard anti catholic), the Catholic Catechism, writing of Church Fathers etc.

It would be a waste of time to give an exposition of catholic dogma in detail here. But for the one who seeks, the writings are readily available. Like what St. Augustine says ” To the one who believes, no explanation is necessary. For the one who does not, no amount of explanation is sufficient!”

I understand what the RCC teaches about it just as any catholic does. Howver there a serious problems with it. To say someone who believes something is in no need of an explanation is to put it beyond discussion and “believe it because I said so” kind thing. We can easily compare what the RCC teaches with Scripture and see if they both agree.

12Oaks,

If false teachers in sheep’s clothing come our way, how can we determine whether they are telling the truth?

This is kind of what we’ve been trying to tell you.  You won’t always be able to tell.  Ultimately, you are the one responsible.  The Catholic Church teaches that an individual’s conscience should and must be the final deal breaker.  BUT, and this is a big BUT, that is if and ONLY if a person’s conscience is well formed.  Many, many, many are not.

That said, we can know for sure that doctrine and dogma made in infallible statements can be trusted.  Not because the Church says so, but because God PROMISED this.  Don’t mess with His Mother and don’t mess with His Bride!

Even if a pope declares something that isn’t “perfect”, it will be honored in heaven.  We, the lay people, are not responsible for the errors that we accepted in good faith. To those who much is given and all that.  Trust me, any priest, bishop or pope that led even one member of his flock astray will hear it from the big guy…if he gets that far.

We just need to trust.  Trust God, and trust the Shepherd whom he placed in authority. 

If you ever come across something that simply does not sit well with your conscience…like for instance if some pope were to declare that abortion was moral and good, RUN for the hills.  But that cannot happen.  A priest could say something like that, but not the pope because God promised that his office would be protected…and guarded…by the Holy Spirit.

Dear faithful:

Amazing! That is exactly what St. Augustine says. While dismissing it you affirm it. This must be a protestant apologetic technique.

If you have read, examined, studied at length what the CC teaches and will not agree, then there is no point in a further exposition of the matter. There are many who will not accept sound teaching of CC and, behold, I am talking about the ones in the CC itself! If they are doomed, then what can I say about others?

MK, please do not refer to God as the “Big Guy.”  That is offensive and irreverent.  Also, we are not to abide when we hear error.  When what we hear is in conflict with God’s Word, we are called to stand for righteousness—the Truth of His Word.  The Lord expects that from his own.  He graced you with a brain and the gift of discernment.

Faithful,

How do you determine what “Offical Teaching” of the RCC is?

I am no theologian or apologist…but I do know that the catechism is a great help.  I’ve used it, my friend that’s a priest, Catholic Answers, New Advent and various other sources just on this blog!

We do have something called the deposit of faith, which is the bare minimum required to be a Catholic.

In no way do we believe that protestants are not saved.  We view you as fully Christian.  What don’t believe is that you have what we call the “Fullness” of faith.

I wish I could convey how beautiful the Eucharist is.  We really believe that that piece of bread and that cup of wine are His body and blood.

If you want, (it would be rather lengthy) I would LOVE to share a little Theology of the Body with you.  It helps you to see the Eucharist in a whole new way.

Also someone on here mentioned Scott Hahn’s ‘The Fourth Cup”.  It’s a really, really good explanation of the Old Testament/New Testament connection with why we have the Eucharist.

As for all that stuff about Mary.  First understand that a lot of that was written at a time where women wore hoop skirts and men still took off their hats for ladies.  They are love songs.

I know it can sound like we think that Mary “saved” us, but we understand, we REALLY do, that her role was in giving birth to the savior.  She didn’t really do it.  She said yes.  Three letters, one word, but it was an absolutely necessary word.  And she said it.  We owe her big time.  Her counterpart dumped a letter, said no, and look where that got us!  Mary, Eve ain’t!

So we’re not worshiping Mary, any more than we worship our own mothers.  But if you were to read some hallmark Mother’s Day cards, you might think that we worship them too.

The point is that no matter how it “looks’ we know that Mary is NOT divine, has no special powers and can perform nothing on her own.  She does however have a special place in her Son’s heart and He has graciously shared her with us.

As a woman, I can tell you how awesome it is to talk to her.  Chick stuff you know.  But I can also tell you that she ALWAYS tells me to go to her son.

MK, Thanks for the reply.  You stated, “A priest could say something like that, but not the pope because God promised that his office would be protected…and guarded…by the Holy Spirit.”  The NT does not promise that the pope is guarded or protected from making a sinful comment anymore than the NT promises that you or I will be free from sin.

Faithful,
Let me tell you a story that might help illustrate Mary’s incredible humility and great love for her son.  Put aside that this is a “miracle” and you might not believe it is real, and focus instead on what Mary does.

Medjugorje is a place in Yugoslavia where our Lady has been appearing for 20 years to what were children, but are now adults.  She brings messages of hope and peace. 

One day a priest came to the “apparition room”.  He was a doubter, but still kept an open mind. He brought the Eucharist with him, figuring that if this were the work of the devil, he would ward off any evil with the Living Host.

When the moment of the apparition came, all 6 children fell to their knees at the same moment.  The priest realized that he was in the presence of Our Lady and started to kneel also.  But he couldn’t.  His knees would not bend. 

He couldn’t see Our Lady, but the children told him that SHE was kneeling.  She told the children to tell the priest to remain standing.  Her Son (the Eucharist) NEVER knelt before her…SHE knelt before him!

This is the Mary that we love.  So many of us Catholics, fallen away, or new, started with a devotion to Our Lady.  But ALWAYS, she leads us to HIM…

Matthew,

That link was AWESOME!

The salvation itself is a gift.  But that gift does not exempt you from your end of the covenant.  Look how many times the Jews broke the covenant.

The beauty of the Church is that no matter how many times you sin, mortal or otherwise, you can ALWAYS come back.  ALWAYS.  God doesn’t THROW you out.  You walk out of your own free will.

Whoa, MK.  All this Maryology is way over the top.  So much focus upon Mary takes one’s focus away from Christ.  Count me among those NOT going there.  Mary was a human being —not deity and nor is she now a deity. Such divisions like this —promulagated by church historians and so-called church “theologians” continue to cause division among Catholics and Evangelicals.  I have direct access to the Father and while I honor and respect Mary, I do not need her intervention to assist me.

Faithful,

Secondly, are you saying that if Mary had said no there would have been no salvation?

No, perhaps Joan or Sally would have said yes.  Then we’d be honoring His mother Bridget!

But God knew that Mary WOULD say yes.  And she did.  Praise God.

Where does Jesus Himself teach that Mary is our mother?

Everything that Jesus has, we have.  He holds nothing back.  His mother not withstanding.  If she is His, she is ours!  Are we not a family?  Our we not Jesus’ brother?  Is God not our Father?  Is the Holy Spirit not Mary’s spouse?  How could she not be our mother?

KR,
Thus, whether you received communion 500 times or 5,000 times in your lifetime does not elevate your status before the Lord.

No, of course it doesn’t.  Receiving the Eucharist doesn’t merit us points!  It is the single most intimate act that we can partake of with Jesus!  It is as intimate as the marital bed!  Faith isn’t a what.  It’s a who!  It’s a relationship.  Sitting in front of the Eucharist, receiving the Eucharist…how much closer can one get?  It’s like the difference between talking here and sitting in the room together sharing a meal.  The phone is nice, but just ask my mother…she’d much rather have me in person!

Necessary?  Is it necessary to spend time with my husband to make the marriage work?  Does he add up the hours and grade me on how much time I’ve spent with Him.  I don’t spend time with my husband because I’ll gain points…I spend time with him because I love him.

It’s the same with the Eucharist.  I spend time, physically, with Jesus, because I LOVE him.  There is no place I’d rather be!

MK writes, “The beauty of the Church is that no matter how many times you sin, mortal or otherwise, you can ALWAYS come back.  ALWAYS.  God doesn’t THROW you out.  You walk out of your own free will.”  The Apostle Paul states, “these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” (Rom 8:30)  How can that verse be true if it is possible for believers to lose their salvation by walking away?  Also, if Catholics are justified at baptism, how could they ever not be glorified?

Faithful,

Time to take out the high blood pressure pills and the Tums:)

Ain’t it the truth???  I wish there were twenty of me.  Every time I finish a comment I find 10 more have gone up while I was typing! 

Ain’t it great?!?!?!

THANK YOU MATTHEW WARNER!

And I have too many Christian friends loyal and committed fully to Christ to accept that they are going hell because they are not “Catholic.” .

Oh KR, I hope that is not what you believe!  The Catholic Church does NOT teach that.  A protestant is as likely to go to heaven as a Catholic.  This is not about saying the Catholic Church has some sort of corner on the heaven market.  Belief and Baptism…bingo.

I think this is more about the “tools” and theology, than about who is and who isn’t saved.  I’m sure countin’ on seein every one of you guys up there!!!!

KR,  YES! Good-Bye, Good Men…so sad…Thanks.  I just hate when my brain freezes.

BTW, to everyone.

I’m a Catholic that lives in Chicago.  I moderated Jill Staneks website for three years, and now share a blog with a girl I met there.  I’m a woman, 52 years old, have six kids ranging in ages from 29-10.  I’m a revert and led a pretty unseemly life before my re-version.  Like Peter, I wouldn’t know where else to go.  It’s so good to be HOME!

Just thought I’d ease the tension a bit.  I love meeting new people.  I’ve actually met a dozen or so people that I became friends with on Jill’s and my own site over the years.  It’s awesome.  People from New York, St. Louis, Minnesota.  So cool to see them in person!  I’m glad to meet all of you too!

KR,

Also, we are not to abide when we hear error. 

Isn’t that exactly what I said?  RUN for the hills?  Where did I say otherwise?  All I said was that if IN GOOD FAITH we follow some teaching that proves to be erroneous, WE will not be held accountable.  IN GOOD FAITH being key here.  If we know better, that’s a different story.

As for referring to God as the Big Guy, no offense or disrespect was meant.  Sorry it that bothered you.  I’ll try to refrain.  Maybe it’s a Chicago thing.  Big Guy, Boss, head honcho, numero uno?  Ah, never mind.  I’ll try to be good.  ;)

12Oaks,

The NT does not promise that the pope is guarded or protected from making a sinful comment anymore than the NT promises that you or I will be free from sin.

Not explicitly no.  He doesn’t say Peter, you and your sucessors cannot err on matters of Faith and Morals.

What He says is the the Gates of hell will not prevail against His Church.  And He puts Peter (and subsequently his successors) in charge of that Church.  So it follows logically that Peter (the popes) cannot err when speaking for the Church.

Now if the pope claims it’s raining when the sun is shining, he’s not covered by the “gates of hell” clause.  But on Faith and Morals?  It’s all good.’

But what would be the point of putting a pope/guardian in place, if he could screw it up?  He is not the one speaking.  He is only the vehicle through which the Holy Spirit speaks.  So if the pope makes an infallible statement, it is not really the pope making it.  The words are coming out of his mouth, but it’s really the Holy Spirit that’s doing the talking.

mk writes-”...My point is that what the Catholic Church teaches is what has ALWAYS been taught…not invented by men, but handed down FROM Jesus, THROUGH men…

Note the quote on confession.  See how the Church has ALWAYS believed in the True Presence…”
What do you mean by “True Presence…”? Does it mean Jesus is literally present in the bread and wine?

KR,

Mary was a human being —not deity and nor is she now a deity.

But I’ve already said that.  In no way, no how, uh-uh, never would I say that Mary is divine.  She’s not.  Special?  Yes.  Favored?  Yes.  A special place in Jesus’ heart?  Oh yeah!  But divine?  NO WAY!  She’d be the first one to tell you so!  As I’ve said, she ALWAYS points you to her son.

What do you mean by “True Presence…”? Does it mean Jesus is literally present in the bread and wine?

If there are any Lutherans out there and I get this wrong…I apologize ahead of time.  This is my understanding.  But I"m not Lutheran.

Catholics believe in what has come to be called Transubstantiation.

Lutherans believe in something called Consubstantiation.

Protestants believe that communion is a symbol.

Lutherans believe that Jesus “enters” the bread, is received by the congregation, and then departs the host.  To know this, just ask a Lutheran what they do with the host after the service.  This is known as consubstantiation.

Catholics believe that the bread and wine actually changes.  It is no longer bread and wine.  It is not the physical body and blood of Jesus.  It’s really HIM.  It looks like bread, and this we call the accident.  But it is actually HIM, this we call the substance.

Jesus was pure spirit until the incarnation.  He had no body.  He didn’t need one.  But he decided to come to us in a form that we could relate to.  He became one of us.  Human.

When His body went back to His Father, He continued to be with us in another form.  That of Bread and Wine.  In a way every consecration is like a new incarnation.  Jesus becoming physical here on earth.

And we consume Him.  Our mass is like the Passover in that it is not a re enactment, but a re entering.  The Jews referred to these as memorials.  When a Jew sits down to passover, he does not believe that he is simply remembering.  He is actually transcending time and re “entering” the original passover.  The mass is the same for us.  We are not re crucifying Jesus.  We are time traveling (for lack of a better word) and reentering that moment where He died for us.  We are entering into the sacrifice.  Not redoing it.  But actually going there.  Remember all of this is taking place on a mystical level.  We can’t “see” it, or “hear” it.  It can’t be understood with the brain, or the eyes or the ears.  No physical senses will do.  It can only be understood or experienced on a metaphysical plane.  The mass is like heaven on earth!  we are not of this world, right?  The mass and the Eucharist are literally, something out of this world!

snikeys!  this “It is not the physical body and blood of Jesus.  ” should read NOW the physical body and blood, not NOT the physical body and blood!

BTW, when mass is over, we lock the remaining hosts up in the tabernacle.  No piece should be allowed to fall.  Every crumb that is humanly possible to see, must be treated with the utmost reverence.

12oaks,

The Apostle Paul states, “these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” (Rom 8:30)

You have to read the rest of the text…

Here:

</B>For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption, through which we cry, “Abba, 3 Father!”</B>  Rom 8:15

and here:

  and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.
18   rom 8:18

He is warning them that if they DO NOT stay in the spirit they will fall!

IF, how many times he qualifies his statements with IF you remain in the spirit.  Remain being key.

IF only we suffer. Suffering is a “work”, no?

The ONLY thing that can separate us from God is US. 

No outside force can take away what God has given.  BUT, we can forfeit it.

  Hence, now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2
  For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and death.
3
  For what the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless to do, this God has done: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

For those who are IN CHRIST.  But you can remove yourself.  It is true that if you stay faithful to the new covenant you have made you will be safe, but if you fall back into the ways of the flesh, all bets are off.  Be careful Paul says.

When Eve bit into that apple, death entered the world.  The first sin, resulted in death for all human beings. BUT, with Jesus’ death and resurrection, we now have a way to escape death.  The tree of life will be opened to the public once again.  This is what Paul is saying.  We CAN live forever.  He’s not guaranteeing that we WILL.  He warning us.  Don’t let go.  Hold fast.

MK, Thanks for your lengthy reply.  However, it doesn’t solve the problem.  Under your view, a person who is justified can be lost.  That means that a justified person who Paul says will be glorified, may in fact not be glorified.  That contradicts what Paul is saying.  There are no “ifs” in Paul’s statements at that point.  The point of his argument is that these things are sure and that there is no way that one who is justified can ever be lost.

12,

Okay, again, I’m no authority, but here is what I see.

Eve, brought death, into the world.  This was brought by sin.  There was no way to undo what Eve did.  We are all going to have the stain of that original sin on our souls.  Forever.  Unless…

Someone takes it away.  When Jesus died He did not take away our ability to ever sin again.  He did not guarantee our salvation, in the sense that no matter what we did we were saved. What He did, was open the gates to heaven, everlasting life, that had been closed due to Eve’s sin.

THIS is the justification. We have been given the gift of the removal of that FIRST sin.  And if we ask forgiveness of any subsequent sins.  His death reopened those gates.  Gave us back the opportunity to enter heaven once again.  Gave us the ability to become clean and start fresh.  But we still have to do the work.

Look at this verse:

“And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach_if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard.” (Col 1:21-23) (1)

IF indeed you continue in the faith, firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel…

Again, he is warning us that we must persevere…

The stain of original sin was removed at baptism, you MAY enter through the gates. BUT this is not a guarantee.  He did the hard part, you still have to do yours.

You cannot really believe that everyone who says yes to Jesus, remains steadfast and is not capable of walking away? 

Our salvation is a journey.  Jesus died so that it would be POSSIBLE to get into heaven.  He cleared the path.  But we MUST cooperate.  And that means more than just a passing nod.

A grave sin, done with full conscious assent, with no remorse, (what we call a mortal sin) is a deal breaker.  YOU, not God, can break the covenant.  This is what Free Will is.  If you are always saved, then you no longer have free will.  You always have free will.  You are always free to leave.  Don’t let the door hit you on the way ou

12Oaks,

In reading something just now, I came across something that might clear this up.

I get the feeling that you believe that when we say we are doing “good works” that we believe WE are doing good works.  But all we are doing really is allowing God to work through us, because without Him we wouldn’t be capable of doing these works.  This I think, is what Paul means when he says that “So no man may boast”.

I, MK, am not doing anything at all really.  God is doing it, using my body, or words.

The Catholic faith speaks of two different kinds of Grace.  Santifying Grace and Actual Grace.

Sanctifying Grace is the supernatural gift of the Holy Spirit living in you.  Baptism, Confirmation…all the sacraments, infuse us with this Grace.  Once there, always there.  Now whether we use it or not, is a different story.  Kind of like your “seal”.

For instance, as a Catholic, if I was baptized, but left the church in my teen years, I don’t “lose” that Grace. It’s mine.  Forever.

If I ever come back to the Church, it’s right there waiting for me.  Piled up in a little treasure chest, just waiting for me to open it and put that Grace to use.  Sanctifying Grace is permanent.  You can’t undo baptism.  Can’t undo any of the Sacraments.  You can’t give back Sanctifying Grace.  It’s a permanent change that takes place in your soul.

But you can reject it.  You can refuse to use it.  So you cannot get into heaven without baptism, BUT baptism is no guarantee that you’ll get into heaven.

The other Grace is called Actual Grace.  This is Grace given in the moment.  Lord give me patience.  Lord, help me through this difficult time.  Lord, help me to love my husband.  When we send out these requests, God responds by sending Graces…Actual Graces…to help us in our times of need.  Strenth, patience, fortitude…whatever the moment calls for.

So in a sense, once baptized always baptized.  But baptism is no guarantee that you won’t bow out of your end of the deal…God will never take that Sanctifying Grace back, but you can choose to ignore it.

MK, while I admire your tenacity, you have no eternal security if you believe you can
lose your salvation.  A saved child of God —born again would in no way turn away
from the Lord, ever.  Anyone who thinks they can lose their salvation is thus not saved.
One would then have no security in Christ.  At some point in the life of every man and
woman we are called upon to make a decision for Christ.  It is a fallacy to think one is
saved because you were sprinkled on as a child.  You did not make a decision at
baptism —your godparents did.

MK.  Thanks again.  I agree that sin and death came into the world through the sin in the garden. I also agree that justification comes through Jesus.  However, the word justify is a judicial or forensic term meaning to “declare righteous.”  When God declares us righteous, He views us as having the righteousness of Jesus Christ.  That is why our salvation does not depend on what we do, but depends entirely upon what Christ has done.  The only condition for a person to be justified is faith in Christ.  The Catholic view that a person can lose justification is a denial of the verse that says there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1).  John says that the one who believes is no longer condemned and has passed from death to life. (5:24).  He also states that we can have eternal life by believing and that we can know we have eternal life on that basis.  The Catholic doctrine on this point is in serious error.

And it is those Graces that allow us to do the Good Works…

Here is a quote by St. Augustine:

“You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts. (En. in Ps. 102:7)”

Okay,

Now I just read that the Jews considered “Faith” a work.  Paul spends a lot of time admonishing them, telling them that NO Faith is not a meritorious action.  It is a gift.

I think that you lose a lot of who Paul was speaking to when you pull out just one verse or word and base your whole argument on that.

Here is what I was just reading:

A number of claims relating to the nature of justification were put forward at the Reformation in response to the alleged errors of Rome.  First, Protestant theologians said that:

These two features of justification: its forensic character and its appropriation by faith alone form the very heart of the Reformation controversy with the Catholic Church. It is impossible to underestimate the importance of this view of justification to the Reformation: “the criterion employed in the sixteenth century to determine whether a particular doctrine was Protestant or otherwise was whether justification was understood forensically.” And Luther (26) called it, “the criterion of a standing or a falling church.” (27)

This is what you are saying.  If you go to the website you can read the Catholic Response.  I’m going to bed now, but I’ll check back in the morning.  I have bookmarked the page and we can pull from it as needed if you like. 

http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a037.html

Thanks for sticking around.  I can’t help but feel the Hand of God in this whole thing.  I think we can both agree…He is amazing!

KR,

Anyone who thinks they can lose their salvation is thus not saved.
One would then have no security in Christ.  At some point in the life of every man and
woman we are called upon to make a decision for Christ.  It is a fallacy to think one is
saved because you were sprinkled on as a child.  You did not make a decision at
baptism —your godparents did.

First, where in scripture does it say that if you believe you can loses your salvation, then you are not saved.  I can name several places that say the opposite….

This being one of them:

“And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach_if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard.” (Col 1:21-23) (1)

Secondly, if you have to assent to your baptism, then you are “Doing” something aren’t you?  This would mean that your salvation was due to something that you did.  How can it be a free gift, if it can only be given with your assent.  Your “yes” is an action.  This flies in the face of the free gift argument. 

Baptism (and infants were baptized from day one) is not something that you do, but something that is done to you.  See the post on Sanctifying Grace.

An infant cannot do anything to merit salvation.  He can only receive it, as all gifts are freely received.  You receive baptism, you don’t “take” it.

And my God Parents did not make a decision.  They simply promised to help raise me in the faith.  My parents made a decision to allow me to receive the gift of baptism.  I did nothing.  There was nothing that I could do.  It was a gift, not a purchase.

My yes came much later.  It comes every minute of every day.  Salvation is an ongoing process.  It’s a day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute…relationship.  It’s not some card you get punched once are allowed entry.  It’s about a person.  Relationships are living breathing things.  They aren’t stagnant.  You don’t get married and expect to stay married unless you WORK at the relationship.  The gift is the removal of original sin.  The rest takes as much work as any relationship.

Mk writes-
“You cannot really believe that everyone who says yes to Jesus, remains steadfast and is not capable of walking away? 
Our salvation is a journey.  Jesus died so that it would be POSSIBLE to get into heaven.  He cleared the path.  But we MUST cooperate.  And that means more than just a passing nod.
A grave sin, done with full conscious assent, with no remorse, (what we call a mortal sin) is a deal breaker.  YOU, not God, can break the covenant.  This is what Free Will is.  If you are always saved, then you no longer have free will.”
If what you say is true then once a person commits a mortal sin they are forever lost because it is impossible to renew them again to repentance. See Hebrews 6:4-6.

Actually, my parents didn’t make the decision either.  I was adopted and had no parents or God parents at the time of my baptism.  It was just God, me and some anonymous person that got me to the baptismal font.  A person to whom I shall be forever grateful.  Without that initial Grace, Sanctifying Grace, given, not taken, I would not have had the Grace needed to be where I am today.

The following will come as a shock to the Catholics in this blog and THE MOST ARROGANT thing to say as far as protestant writers are concerned. Be that as it may.

Someone complained earlier that it is arrogant to say there is only one true church. Let me agree with that person. You see, for the High Priest and others who conspired the death of Jesus, His claim to be the Son of God was a most preposterous and arrogant claim. And after Jesus, for the Church to be saying that there is no other Saviour (and without coming to believe in Jesus one is destined to damnation) was also the most arrogant thing to be saying and for which many have been martyred. Thus if the Truth appears to be arrogant, it is because it simply is. It is arrogant only to those who will not accept it.

Some catholic writers in their personal goodwill are saying that protestants are also going to heaven (‘see you there!’). Though God is sovereign and He can save whomever He chooses, the Gospel we preach tells us that there is a certain way we must live before we are allowed to get in. No automatic access for a believer, only the confidant hope of God’s mercy. There are MANY, not a few, who will be cast out, according to Jesus Himself, even though they had been doing many mighty things IN HIS NAME (Jesus says I NEVER knew you, i.e.. not knowing a person means He does not even know or remember the name) and those who are separated as goats and cast out! These people, unfortunately, as the narrative indicates, are taken by surprise and in fatal despair. They must have believed in the theory of once saved always saved, no matter what!

The protestant mind thinks that everyone who dies goes straight to heaven. That is why they always say whenever someone dies, that he is gone to be with the Lord. Many believe that there is no Judgement, misusing Paul’s teaching. Catholics do not claim this, for we personally do not know who is going up there. We, catholics, say someone is in heaven ONLY when the Church declares someone to be in heaven.  As for the rest, we hope and pray that they have gone there or will get there. Now the CC has not canonised anyone outside the CC as a saint in heaven, however famous or pleasing, not even the likes of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli or for that matter a single protestant. Therefore for a catholic to say that good protestants are going to heaven is, in our love for them, only an expression of goodwill and hope and not a confirmation of their belief. That belief is THE MOST ARROGANT of all since it is neither scriptural nor true.

Faithful,

(I’ll never get to bed…lol)

If what you say is true then once a person commits a mortal sin they are forever lost because it is impossible to renew them again to repentance. See Hebrews 6:4-6.

No, the door NEVER closes.  God did not break the covenant.  He patiently waits, with open arms, always waiting to take us back.  This is what confession is.  I am required as a Catholic to go to confession once a year, whether I have a mortal sin on my soul or not.  But this is to obtain tee Sanctifying Graces of the Sacrament.  Not to keep the door open.  I need the Spiritual Boost of Grace to get me through the year.

However, if at any time I commit a sin so grave that it severs the covenant I have with God, I must go immediately to confession, ask forgiveness, and begin again.  I cannot receive the Eucharist with a mortal sin on my soul.  There are a number of things that must be present in order for a sin to be mortal.  First, it must be serious.  Second, I must be aware that it IS a mortal sin.  Third, I must have committed it of my own free will.

This ability to absolve sins is one of the “powers” I was saying that the apostles had.

For the moment that I am in the confessional, the priest ceases to be who is He and becomes Jesus.  Not physically.  Again, this is all other worldly.  Supernatural.  Jesus is actually forgiving my sins.  Not the priest.  We call this persona Christi.  So really, I AM confessing my sins to God and not to a man.  But God uses this man to work through.  Every sacrament must have matter and form.  Matter meaning oil (as in confirmation), water (as in baptism) and form meaning the words spoken.

The “matter” in this case is the sin itself.  The form, of course are the words of absolution.  But make no mistake.  It is not the priest who absolves our sins.  It is God and God alone.  The priest is merely and instrument, there to deliver the sacrament in a physical way.

In this way, we are actually more sure of our salvation than you are.  What do you do when you commit a grave sin?  How can you be sure that your sin was forgiven?  How can you be sure that God did not read your heart and find it wanting?  I can be sure, because the priest, declares it so.

‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain they are retained’ (John 20:22-23)

MK - It is impossible to lose salvation.  To think we can puts the onus on US and not on God, and His Grace.  I liked the way you desrcibed the “works” in that it is HE that works through us.  A great analogy.

Once we are “sealed” in the Holy Spirit - that term is in Catholic Bibles too, it just isn’t preached or spoken about in Mass, we can never be UN-sealed.  If we sin - and sin is sin, to a holy God- Jesus raised the bar on sin, there is no minor and major sin, we can GRIEVE the Holy Spirit and by refusing to submit to Him, we can QUENCH the Holy Spirit, but we never, ever lose the Holy Spirit.

Catholics put too much emphasis on infant baptism, making it seem as if that is how we are saved.  I remember as a child, I always breathed a sigh of relief when one of my little cousins was baptized, thinking “now they’re in, and if something happens to the child, they can go to Heaven.”

How wrong I was! Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini were all baptized Roman Catholics.  Hitler was an altar boy and Stalin was actually studying to be a priest in the seminary, though he was never ordained - he was trying to please his mother, or some such reason, it had nothing to do wtih his wanting to glorify God.

Stalin’s daughter said his death was horrible, with his fighting someone - and she is a Christian.  So one can assume that by their lives, they never did repent, and they were not ‘saved’. 

That said, had they REPENTED and turned to God, He’d have forgiven them - Jesus died once for ALL - and we merely need to SEE that and accept it.

I love the Mass - I’m glad you wrote that it is NOT a re-sacrifice.  Be sure to not underestimate those other denominations though - Anglicans are like pre-Vatican II Catholics, receiving at an altar rail, and on the tongue.  It’s lovely.

Dear Faithful:

Hebrews 6: 4-6 deals with a certain type of sin. ‘Make him a mockery’ i.e. by apostasy.

Verse 10 should be an eye opener to you. “For God is not unjust, that he should forget your works….” God would indeed be unjust if He punished sin without rewarding good works.

And when people persist in refusing to obey God, He has been known to “turn them over to” their evil ways - like in Romans Chapter One.  But those people were NEVER saved to begin with.

Even when they are teachers, preachers, we must test the spirits, & HOLD FAST WHAT IS TRUE.  That’s why it is written that “in those days, they will come to me and say, Lord!  Lord!  I preached in your name, I healed in your name.  And I will say to them, ‘Depart from me, you doers of iniquity, I never knew you.”  Who would that be written for?

There will be wolves amongst us, at the worst, and at the best, they may just be some people that do not know any better.  That’s why Paul had to straighten out Peter, in the Council of Jerusalem. Further, Peter identified himself as just another elder, I believe.  It was only much later that Rome took on significance.  That said, I do think it’s important to have a central place for order - as in the Vatican.  But I think unlimited power and control, unchecked and unquestioned, is wrong.

I’m curious to know what everyone thinks about church history from the Dark Ages - and the times where there were two popes, and struggles, buying of positions, etc.  Surely, the Holy Spirit was grieved.  We have the chance now to correct a LOT!  And talking is good!  Thank you!

Terry writes-”...We, catholics, say someone is in heaven ONLY when the Church declares someone to be in heaven….”
How does the RCC know if a particular person is in heaven or purgatory?

Terry,
There is only “one true church” —the blood bought church of Jesus Christ.
Many Protestants and Catholics put too much emphasis on their denomination.  They put their denomination ahead of even being Christian to the point of idol worship of their “institutional” church.  My problem is that of the RCC bureaucracy becoming so “theological” about everything we do —including when to stand, kneel, and sit.  There are no denominations in Heaven.  The pope will not stand next to you at the hour of your death and I have no intention to bow and kiss his ring either.

Terry writes “Dear faithful:

Amazing! That is exactly what St. Augustine says. While dismissing it you affirm it. This must be a protestant apologetic technique.

If you have read, examined, studied at length what the CC teaches and will not agree, then there is no point in a further exposition of the matter. There are many who will not accept sound teaching of CC and, behold, I am talking about the ones in the CC itself! If they are doomed, then what can I say about others?”
The problem with this line of reasoning is i can apply it to you also. Since you don’t accept the protestant position you are doomed. The fact of the matter is, is that a person can be wrong about a lot of things that won’t condemn him except one thing.

Also, Terry,—-it is not by denomination we are saved.  Just because you are Protestant, Catholic, non-denominational or Evangelical —there are many in churches who are not saved.  If you have not committed your heart, soul, mind and strength to the Lord —you are among the “lukewarm” which Jesus clearly states He will spit out.  Contrary to Catholic grammar school teaching, one is not saved by church attendance.

Personally, I will and have accepted sound and Biblical teaching from the RCC.  No problem.
I will not accept RCC “opinion” when masqueraded as “Truth” —just because some guy with
a collar says so.  The gift of discernment is to determine Truth versus error.  Of course, not
every opinion is error.  But when the opinion conflicts with Scripture —then it is error.

The Catholic church is not a denomination.  It is the first Church.  All the Churches that splintered off from it are denominations.  Denominations of the Catholic Church.

Some more passages that clearly show you can lose your salvation and fall back into your old ways…

“But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” - 1 Corinthians 9:27

“And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.” - Romans 11:17-23

All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it.
Do you not know that the runners in the stadium all run in the race, but only one wins the prize? Run so as to win.
Every athlete exercises discipline in every way. They do it to win a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one.
Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing.
No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.  1 COR 9:27

How are you guys able to say with certainty that you are saved, when even St. Paul was unable to do so?

How do you pull one scripture passage, cling to it, and dismiss 20 others that prove your interpretation was wrong?  I just don’t get it.  Especially when you pull those passages out of context.

And here is a passage that clearly shows that without the teaching authority of the church, scripture cannot be fully understood.  Phillip, and apostle, full of authority, representing the church, explains what the eunuch is reading…

So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, 8 that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship,
and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.”
Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.  Acts 8:27-31

Terry,

While protestants may not be considered in full communion with the Catholic Church, we still recognize them as Christians, and believe that salvation can be theres.  Do we wish they would come home?  Obviously, but we do not view them as would view, say, a Hindu.  They are still part of the “family”.

From the Catechism:

819
  “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.“274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.“276

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.shtml

Dear Faithful:

Of course I may be doomed. But not for rejecting teaching of CC but as a result of something else. We catholics never arrogate to ourselves that we, once saved, are always saved. But we do have the confidant assurance of the mercy of the Lord.

The Lord said that all sins are forgiven except sins against the Holy Spirit which will not be forgiven neither in this world nor the next. Therefore, the many who are cast out on judgement day certainly have sinned against the Holy Spirit. No forgiveness for them even though they appear not to have been aware that they were grievously sinful. But the protestants claim that the Holy Spirit will never leave a person! That is why Jesus warned that those who follow blind teachers also fall into the same hole with their teachers. However, the Lord will never let that be the final outcome in the case of a person, who may, for a time, go astray, following blind teachers. That is why He appeared to Saul but not the High Priest and others.

When a man is “saved”—he knows it —without a doubt.
It’s called the “exchanged life” —done at the cross.
He exchanged HIS life for mine.
Paul did, in fact, know it.
“You are not your own, you have been bought with a price.”
The assurance by Jesus as well.  He would not lose one that
the Father had given Him.

That is one of the problems with RC dogma.
Hope —but no assurance.  Only hope.
Even my Parish priest says at every funeral mass:
“Well, we hope he’s on his way.”
Even my Pastor has no assurance —only hope.
The security of the believer is granted by the Holy Spirit.

Dear MK:

Yes, they are Christians and they do hold beliefs that are common with the CC. But as the catechism says, they are called to unity and since they refuse, in the final analysis because of false beliefs, to come to that unity, it would be in error to confidently consider that they are saved.

Jesus’s high priestly prayer, St. John 17,  at the end of His Ministry, was to plead with the Father that we all be one as the two of them are one, nothing less but perfect unity. The petition is not a flippant prayer but a serious appeal, because, without the unity He pleads for, salvation is impossible. Division is the work of Satan.

Although we love our protestant brothers and sisters, we do not consider them to be united with us in the very essentials, the unity at the table, i.e., the Eucharist (Mass). Simply saying Jesus is Lord will not do. The many who are cast out on judgement day also address Jesus as Lord to no avail.

Terry,

The key word there being “confident”...None of us can be confident.  But to dismiss them simply because they are not in full communion is not what the Church teaches.  Of course we pray for them to be in full communion, but we also pray for fellow Catholics. 

I didn’t say they were guaranteed, and I didn’t say simply because they “believe”.  They must also be baptized.  You can be “in the family”, without participating in the family.  Once you are baptized you are one of us.  This is why the same rules do not apply to Hindus, Muslims or pagans.

That baptism makes a difference.  Ironically, the very baptism that brings them into the family is one of the things we disagree about.  It is claimed that you need not do works to get into heaven, and yet the very first step towards being a Christian for protestants, that of baptism, is for them, a “work”...

For us, it is an indelible mark on the soul..something that happens TO us.  THIS is what makes them part of the fold, albeit imperfectly.

And this is why they misunderstand infant baptism.  The reason we baptize infants is that we do not believe it is something WE do, but something that is done TO US.  If that is true, then why would we wait.  If baptism is REQUIRED for entrance into heaven, then why would we put it off?  Sentience, assent, works, are not required.  It is a sacrament.  Infants can receive communion and confirmation also.  Since these are not required for salvation, we don’t customarily confer them on infants.  But we could, and there is evidence that the early church did just that.

But the point is, that unlike protestants, we view baptism as a gift.  Something that can be given at ANY age.  It is also REQUIRED, so what sense would it make to wait until you are a willing participant?

It might help if we stop this incessant drumbeat re the Eucharist.
Protestants nor Catholics are saved by receiving communion in
a memorial—or—by receiving the Eucharist as the “real presence.”
It’s a non-starter.  Neither communion or the Eucharist is a condition
of Salvation.  Most RC’s think—more is better.  Thus Catholics are
holier than thou—giving them an inside track to Heaven over their
non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters.

btw, how come our priests are so ill prepared to engage in any of
these discussions?  We seem to have more passion about the faith
than they do.  A sad commentary re our priests and bishops.

KR,

When a man is “saved”—he knows it —without a doubt.
It’s called the “exchanged life” —done at the cross.
He exchanged HIS life for mine.
Paul did, in fact, know it.
“You are not your own, you have been bought with a price.”
The assurance by Jesus as well.  He would not lose one that
the Father had given Him.

Did you even read the passages that I put up from scripture?  St Paul does not KNOW.  He says, over and over, that we must constantly maintain the covenant.

You can’t just pick one scripture passage, and ignore dozens of others.  This is dishonest. 

We have been given the way to heaven…Grace, Faith and works.  But we won’t know til we get there whether or not we have kept our end of the bargain.  We can be pretty sure, but not guaranteed.  Period.  No where in scripture does it say differently.

Where scripture says the door has been opened through Jesus’ death and resurrection and we now have the ABILITY to go home, you constantly read we are guaranteed.  But this is a false interpretation of what Jesus said.

Take each of those scripture passages that I posted and show me how they are NOT saying that the prize is to be CONSTANTLY sought. Don’t give me a different passage, refute the ones I gave you…

MK, You say, “How do you pull one scripture passage, cling to it, and dismiss 20 others that prove your interpretation was wrong?  I just don’t get it.”  If your view is correct, you also have to be able to explain all of the opposing passages.  The reason evangelicals reject your view is because they view the overall biblical evidence as much stronger than the verses and arguments you have made.  For example, you say that the Apostle Paul did not know that he had eternal life.  If that is correct, how do you explain that his joyful statement, “We are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home present with the Lord.” (2 Cor 5:8).  He also said, “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.” (Rom 5:1) and “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1).  How can we face future condemnation if there is no condemnation?  Catholics teach that a baptized person is justified and that a justified person can later lose her salvation.  However, Paul says, “these whom he justified, He also glorified.” (Rom 8:30). How can a person who is glorified be lost?  John says we can know we have eternal life (1 John 5:13).  If we can lose our salvation how could we ever know we have eternal life?  Paul says we are “accepted in the Beloved.”  What does it mean that we have passed from death to life (John 5:24) and shall not come under condemnation (John 5:24)?  These are just a few verses that are major problems with your view.  If these verses cannot be reconciled with your view, then your view is incorrect.  Evangelicals who reject your view, do so because they think that the task of reconciling your view with the opposing verses cannot be successfully completed.

KR,

Dismiss the Eucharist?  That’s like saying why don’t we leave Jesus out of this discussion?  He just muddies the waters!  lol

The Eucharist is the source, summit, heart of the Catholic Faith.  Remove the Eucharist and you are left with words.  The Church has the Word AND the actual BODY. 

You seem to have a real problem with our priests.  I’m assuming something has happened to make you feel this way.  It has been my experience that many, many, many wonderful priests know their faith and are willing to share it.

Perhaps you have been asking the wrong priests?  Find a church with a perpetual adoration chapel, or find a traditional church (Tridentine Mass) or find a priest under 35, or find an opus dei priest.  You’ll be surprised at how much they would like to share the faith with you.

But don’t forget that since that horrible episode in our priesthood (Good Bye-Good Men), vocations went way down, and what vocations there were, were seriously flawed.  This left many parishes with only one priest.  As my mother used to say “I have only two hands, and I’m using them both at the minute”.  Those that have the time contribute to answering questions on forums such as these, EWTN, Relevant Radio, Catholic Answers and HUNDREDS if not thousands of books.  If every person that had a question required the personal presence of a priest for answers, they’d have no time to carry out their other priestly obligations (ie: Mass, Baptisms, Funerals, etc)

In another 20 years, there will be plenty of priests to go around, but for now we must be understanding, patient and responsible for our own search. 

I urge you to find a priest that fits the criteria I have given you, invite him for coffee and pick his brain.  I have done this more times than I can count and have had numerous, wonderful, fruitful conversations.

Twelve Oaks,
As I said to KR, don’t throw more passages at me, refute the ones I gave you.  This is what I have been doing.  You say you take the whole biblical meaning, and yet still, you dismiss so many passages that show your “interpretation” is incorrect.

I addressed many of the passages you cite.

Paul knows that at the moment he IS in Christ.  But he cannot tell you what tomorrow will bring.  He knows that tomorrow he will need to do what needs to be done, to REMAIN in that state of grace.

There is no condemnation for those who are IN Christ…but this asssumes that they are in fact IN CHRIST.  They may be at the moment, but Paul warns us to be vigilant.  What would the point of the parable of the virgins and the lamps be if we could rest on our laurels?  Or the parable of the wedding feast?  Or the parable of thief in the night? These are all admonitions to STAY ALERT!  Every moment of every day we must renew the covenant.

This is why it is so important to take the NT in context with the OT.  Look backwards to see forwards.  The covenant can and WAS broken. By US.  And it can still be broken.

Dear MK:

All the Fathers of the Church who engaged heretics showed no compassion for the errors they taught because wrong teaching is diabolical. All the NT letters were written to correct misguided views and teaching.

St. Paul himself said, in Galatians 5, that heretics will not attain the Kingdom of God. In fact, they are lumped together with idolaters, witches, murderers, drunkards etc. etc. And Paul says, “I warn you as I have warned you before, that they who do such things will not attain…”

Now, how’s that for certainty of damnation!

Twelve,

You claim that once saved always saved.  You claim that you can be SURE that you are saved.  Yet when we point to Christians that have fallen away, you say, “Well, they were never really saved to begin with”....How then can you claim to KNOW that YOU are really saved?  They thought they were saved too.  You can’t have it both ways.  Claim that you know, and then claim that you were mistaken!

You know, it’s funny.  The protestants on this forum keep claiming that there is no authority in the Church.  That scripture can be understood by every man…and yet, all of the passages you cite have been pointed out to you by someone else.  You have been “taught” these things.  All the arguments have been laid out for you by someone else and you pull them out as needed.  And yet you claim that there is no authority. 

We admit there is an authority.  The Magesterium.  You do not admit to an authority and yet your entire argument is based on other people…people whom you have, perhaps unwittingly, deemed to be YOUR authority.

Look at this passage:

Acts 8:30

Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”

Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him.

Behold, the first example of the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church.  The original Magesterium.

To all of you bloggers:

I am happy to have met you in this forum. This is my first time as a blogger and I enjoyed it.

Since this is not a permanent thing, if any one of you would like to continue beyond this forum, you can e-mail me at tgfernt@hotmail.com and if you ever come to Toronto, Canada, please let me know and we can chat over a curry meal.

Cheers!

KR, Faithful, Twelve:

Explain these passages:

Thus I do not run aimlessly; I do not fight as if I were shadowboxing.
No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified.  1 COR 9:27

For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.” - Romans 11:17-23

“And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach_if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard.” (Col 1:21-23) (1)

“But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” - 1 Corinthians 9:27

“If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” - Philippians 3:11-14

“And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.” - Matthew 10:22
“But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” - Matthew 24:13

“And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” - Mark 13:13
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” - Matthew 7:21

“Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.” - John 8:31

“Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.” - James 1:12

“For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.” - 2 Peter 2:20-21

You cannot just dimsiss these passages because they do not fit with what you think the others are saying…

Look at your own example…

Hence, now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2   For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed you from the law of sin and death.
3   For what the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless to do, this God has done: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

Paul is speaking to the Jews, a group of people who believe the only way to be righteous and escape death is to follow the law, exactly, perfectly.  Paul is telling them that NO, you no longer must follow the law the old way.  There is a new way.  Jesus died so that you CAN make mistakes and still have eternal life.  He is telling them that they have used the law, manipulated it, and ultimately abused it.  They could NEVER live up to the law, but GOD can make them lawful in a new way.

He is not saying “Jesus died, you no longer have to follow the law”.  He is saying that the law has been fulfilled and they are no longer bound to the day of atonement…Yom Kippur.  EVERY DAY is now Yom Kippur!  EVERY DAY affords you the opportunity to be forgiven of your transgressions.  THIS is what was accomplished through JESUS. 

To interpret this to mean that you can do anything you want as long as you believe, is an erroneous interpretation of what Paul is saying.

See how I addressed where your interpretation as wrong in this particular passage?  This is what I am asking you to do with the passages that I have cited.  Not give me more passages, but address the ones that I have presented.

Terry????

You’re leaving me???  I’m the only Catholic left!  HEEEEEELLP???? lol

Nice to have met you also.  Maybe I’ll see you on a different blog.
You can always visit mine.  There are some Traditional Catholics on there that you might like.  It’s sort of on hiatus until September, (summer and we all have kids).  Drop by in a few weeks and share, share, share.

Thanks, MK.  It is possible that people who “fall away” were never saved to begin with.  However, it is also possible that believers may fall into sin.  The Bible does not claim that a person who is a believer will live a godly life.  In fact, the book of 1 Corinthians is a great example.  Paul calls the Corinthians saints (1:3), yet he goes on to catalogue a wide range of horrible sins they are committing.  Of particular note is his admonition to those who would commit horrible sexual sins.  He doesn’t say, “If you do this sin you are not a Christian.”  He says, “Don’t do this sin, because you are a Christian: “Do you not know that you are a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.” (1 Cor 6:18-19) Paul does not use the fear of losing salvation as a motivator to live a godly life.  Rather, eternal security (we have the indwelling holy spirit who will never leave us, and we are bought with a price, i.e. we are redeemed) as the motivators for believers to live godly and holy lives.

Twelve,

Committing a sin is not criteria for losing the faith.  We ALL sin.  But sinning and NOT repenting is a different story.  No matter what sin you commit, Jesus’ death/res makes it possible to begin anew.  In the OT you had only one day a year to atone, and if you died before that day you were lost.

Catholics do not believe that if they sin, they lose their salvation.  They believe that if they sin and do not REPENT, are not contrite, do no ask forgiveness, embrace the sin, reject the forgiveness, refuse to acknowledge that they have sinned, THEN, they can lose their place in heaven.  Not the ability, only the fact.

Twelve,

It is possible that people who “fall away” were never saved to begin with

Yes, that is possible.  But what is not possible is that you can be assured of your salvation.  Because that would contradict the first statement.  Did the fellow who “fell away” not previously declare that he was once saved always saved?  Did he not claim to be SURE of his salvation.  Then he fell.  Either you are sure and cannot fall away, or you can fall away which means you were not sure!

Dear 12 Oaks:

Paul in Galatians, as are all the letters in NT,  IS writing to christians. A christian is a christian whether or not in sin. If he does commit the sins that he mentions as works of the flesh (in chapter 5) which includes heresy, then, though a christian, he nevertheless goes to hell. He has NO Holy Spirit in him.

MK, There is no contradiction.  A Christian cannot lose her salvation.  Therefore, it is not possible that a Christian who falls away “was never saved in the first place.”  That’s why I stated it is possible that “people who fall away” were never saved in the first place.

Dear 12 Oaks:

So they were not christians in the first place?

.

mk writes-“You know, it’s funny.  The protestants on this forum keep claiming that there is no authority in the Church.  That scripture can be understood by every man…and yet, all of the passages you cite have been pointed out to you by someone else.  You have been “taught” these things.  All the arguments have been laid out for you by someone else and you pull them out as needed.  And yet you claim that there is no authority.”
There may be some protestants that say the RCC has no authority but not all. The question is that authority from God or men? The other issue is does this authority err even matters of faith and morals? That to has been shown it does.

MK—fyi I am a lifetime Catholic —but a Catholic with a brain that God gave me.  I am not a “mindless” Catholic that simply bows down to whatever the Vatican or some church leader says.  They are men,—not God. I must test what they “say” against the Word and ensure they are not taking license and forming “opinion” rather than explaining Truth.

Furthermore, you hurt your argument by constantly cutting and pasting passages of Scripture which make your e-mail comments so very long that we become tired of your rant.  Just explain in “Your own words.”  You are as guilty and boring as some Protestants I know.  Explain the Scripture rather than merely pasting the passage.

Faithful and Tweleve Oaks,—I do not know if you are RC, but I thank you for your comments.  You are using the brain God has graced you with.
And Terry,—YES.  Many people who call themselves “Christian”—including Catholics are not.  Twelve Oaks is correct.  They were never saved in the first place.

Get this straight —YOU are not save by infant baptism nor by the Roman church or any Protesant church.  You are saved only by the shed blood done for you at the cross.  Period.

mk writes -“Faithful,

How do you determine what “Offical Teaching” of the RCC is?

I am no theologian or apologist…but I do know that the catechism is a great help.  I’ve used it, my friend that’s a priest, Catholic Answers, New Advent and various other sources just on this blog!”

Mk writes-“Faithful,
How do you determine what “Offical Teaching” of the RCC is?
I am no theologian or apologist…but I do know that the catechism is a great help.  I’ve used it, my friend that’s a priest, Catholic Answers, New Advent and various other sources just on this blog!”
In a certain sense we are all theologians. We need to be if we are to understand what Christ taught. Do you believe that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God? In a document entitled Nostra Aetate. The section on Islam begins thus:
The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men.

Mk writes “Faithful,
(I’ll never get to bed…lol)
If what you say is true then once a person commits a mortal sin they are forever lost because it is impossible to renew them again to repentance. See Hebrews 6:4-6.
No, the door NEVER closes.  God did not break the covenant.  He patiently waits, with open arms, always waiting to take us back.  This is what confession is.  I am required as a Catholic to go to confession once a year, whether I have a mortal sin on my soul or not.  But this is to obtain tee Sanctifying Graces of the Sacrament.”
Hope you got some sleep. Can you on your own ask for forgiveness of a mortal sin? If not, then would it not be foolish not to confess daily to a priest to be forgiven considering the consequences of dying with sin on your soul and being condemned?
Does grace come only come through the sacraments?

MK, perhaps if our priests were better educated in the Word, they would thus be able to engage in such discussion.  I do not know what they are teaching in the seminaries these days, but our guys are poorly equipped to do any teaching without first checking with the local bishop for his approval.  For many, it has become a job —not a calling.  And as for Catholic Answers LIVE—on the radio? —Nice program until you ask pointed questions until which the host and guest cannot answer and stumble with.  Then it is time for a commerical —“but please call us back again.”

Terry, Thanks for the reply (and the offer for curry).  MK’s original point was, ” Yet when we point to Christians that have fallen away, you say, “Well, they were never really saved to begin with.”  Christians can become cold, weak and unfruitful.  In that sense, they can fall away.  However, a Christian does not lose eternal life.  Put another way, a justified person does not become unjustified.  Put another way, a person who drinks of living water shall never thirst again.

Twelve,

MK, There is no contradiction.  A Christian cannot lose her salvation.  Therefore, it is not possible that a Christian who falls away “was never saved in the first place.”  That’s why I stated it is possible that “people who fall away” were never saved in the first place.

I get that.  My point is not that they weren’t saved, it’s that they believed that they WERE saved, only to find out that they were not.  How do you know the same will not happen to you?  They had the same assurances that you do, the same love for Jesus, the same everything.  Then one day they walked away.

They either A.  were saved and lost that grace or
B. were never saved and therefore could not truthfully say that they KNEW they were saved.  Which is it?

Are you saved?  Are you absolutely positive?  What would it mean if in 10 years time you walked away?  Would it mean that you were never saved?  Yet you claim that you are.  What makes you different than the other guy that walked away.

Faithful,

The question is that authority from God or men? The other issue is does this authority err even matters of faith and morals? That to has been shown it does.

But the same question must be asked of your authority…the authority that taught you.

I have shown that Catholic Teaching in no way contradicts scripture, is backed up by scripture and was given to the Church by Jesus Himself.  You have shown me no scriptural basis for those whom you give authority in your own church…

So I ask you:  Is the authority that taught you to dissent from the Catholic Church from God and how do you know? 

I know.  Because Scripture tells me so.  How do you know?

Also, by definition, if the authority was given to the Church then it must be true. 

And lastly, the Church Voice is actually the Voice of God.  The voice of the Holy Spirit.  He speaks through the Pope, but the pope is not He.

The pope is simply a physical vehicle through which the Holy Spirit speaks.

To say the Church is wrong, is to say the Holy Spirit is wrong, which is to say that God is wrong.

Did God or did God not give the Church the Authority with a capital “A” that she claims?

Twelve Oaks is absolutely correct.
A justified person does not become unjustified.  You may become unfruitful—but never lost.

MK, to espouse your belief you are destined to live your whole life without eternal security.  To live each day without absolute certainty of one’s salvation is not the peace of Christ promised to all who believe.  Satan is still at work casting doubt upon the Truth of God’s Word.

Terry writes, ” If he does commit the sins that he mentions as works of the flesh (in chapter 5) which includes heresy, then, though a christian, he nevertheless goes to hell. He has NO Holy Spirit in him.”  The text does not teach the two conclusions you have made, that a Christian who commits those crimes goes to hell or that he does not have the Spirit in him.  First, the indwelling of the Spirit is permanent for NT believers, “He will abide with you forever” (John 14:16-17).  Galatians 5 teaches that we should walk according to the Spirit.  It then contrasts walking in the Spirit with walking in the flesh.  However, the text does not say that Christians sin by walking in the flesh go to hell.

KR,

They are men,—not God. I must test what they “say” against the Word and ensure they are not taking license and forming “opinion” rather than explaining Truth.

I never claimed, and in fact have said numerous times (in my own words) that you should RUN from any clergy member that speaks falsehoods.  How many ways/times must I say it.

The only authority that cannot be wrong is the pope in an infallible statement.  On Doctrine.  On Faith and morals.

PRIESTS CAN BE WRONG.
BISHOPS CAN BE WRONG.

MEN CAN BE WRONG.

But the pope is only a man when he is not being used by the Holy Spirit.

You claim to be a lifelong Catholic and yet you are dissident.  So while you may have been baptized into the Catholic Church, it sounds to me like you walked away from her.  You pick and choose which things you like and trash the others.  By definition this means that you are a Catholic in name only.

If you think I am mindless then you have not been reading my posts.

I am debating with protestants who respect Scripture.  Hence I use scripture to debate.  When I debate the Life issue I use Guttmacher because that is a source that Pro Choicers respect. 

If my scripture posts are tiresome, skip them.  You’re not really reading them anyway.

I have no desire to reinvent the wheel.  Augustine, Ignatius, Aquinas, and hundreds of intelligent, learned men and women have already answered these questions.  Much better than I could.  I could make a mistake as I am NOT protected from misunderstanding as the Pope is.  I do not want that on my conscience so I go to the experts.

You trust yourself more.  I’m afraid I do not have that confidence. These are deep matters and I do not feel qualified to speak for the Church, hence I let those that are much more qualified than I do it for me….

Peace.

MK writes, “In the OT you had only one day a year to atone, and if you died before that day you were lost.” MK, OT believers did not lose their salvation if they died before the Day of Atonement.  They were saved by faith and not by keeping the Law.

YOU are not save by infant baptism nor by the Roman church or any Protesant church.  You are saved only by the shed blood done for you at the cross.  Period.

No one is disputing this.

MK —your faith clearly seems to be in men (popes) and in the corporate institution of church bureacracy.  Thus, they can do no wrong.  Of course, any thinking man knows both have never, ever been incorrect regarding anything since they are sinless human beings.  Please put Christ above men and institutions.  This goes as well for Protestants and Evangelicals.

MK writes, “What would the point of the parable of the virgins and the lamps be if we could rest on our laurels?  Or the parable of the wedding feast?  Or the parable of thief in the night? These are all admonitions to STAY ALERT!”  MK, that’s correct.  We are supposed to stay alert.  However, that doesn’t mean that those who do not stay alert go to hell!  One reason we need to stay alert is because the devil is prowling about destroying marriages, ruining relationships and tempting people to sin.  Some of the parables you mention relate to the kingdom of God and are not teaching about losing salvation.

Faithful,

The Church regards with esteem also the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men.

To understand this statement you must not only understand what it means, but also what it does NOT mean.

Simply.  Yes, I believe that Muslims believe in the same God that we do.  The God of Abraham.  The only God.  The one true God.

That said, we do NOT believe that they are Christian, or saved.  They do not accept Jesus as divine, they do not accept that the Holy Spirit exists.  Their religion is a “false” one.  It’s premise is incorrect.

For the record, the Jews believe in the same God that we do too.  The God of Abraham.  Without getting into whether Jews are saved or not, whether the old covenant was broken or intact, suffice it to say that they are not Christian.

In the case of Muslims and Jews, it is not so much a question of whether or not they believe in the same God as it is whether or not they believe in that God in the same WAY.

Hindus, Pagans, Buddhists,and other faiths do NOT believe in the God of Abraham.

KR,

MK —your faith clearly seems to be in men (popes) and in the corporate institution of church bureacracy.  Thus, they can do no wrong.

lol…okay, yes, you’re right.  I do not believe in Jesus, I believe in men who wear robes.  You’ve caught me.

Sheesh, it’s kind of pointless arguing with you when no matter what I say you refuse to hear it. 

Fine, have it your way. I’m a heathen, a non believer, when I die I hope to go to Rome and live with the pope.

I may pull up scripture and copy and paste from authoritative sources, but you are like a broken record. 

It’s like you don’t care what the fight is about, as long as you can fight….

MK writes, “There is no condemnation for those who are IN Christ…but this asssumes that they are in fact IN CHRIST.  They may be at the moment, but Paul warns us to be vigilant.”  Being “in Christ” is a phrase Paul uses to refer to our relationship with Christ.  We are justified as a gift by His grace.  Futher, this justification comes by faith. (Rom 5:1).  Being “in Christ” is not a temporary thing; we are sealed “in Him” with the Holy Spirit of promise (Eph 1:13-14).  Sin does not undo the promises of justification, glorification, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit forever, or the sealing of The Holy Spirit until the day of redemption.  It is because of these truths, and others, that evangelicals do not embrace the Catholic doctrine that says we can lose our salvation.

The parable of the virgins is most certainly about being saved.  10 virgins went out to meet the bridegroom.  This means 10 believers, or they wouldn’t have gone to meet Him.  But only five lived the faith.  Only five had done what had been asked of them.  ALL 10 BELIEVED.  ALL 10 fully expected to be welcomed by the bridegroom.  But they weren’t.

Here is what the following verses say:

  Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

  And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Yes, Jesus is talking about the Kingdom.  What do you think the Kingdom IS?  It is heaven and not all will be let in.  All of those who were turned away had faith.  But not all had “works”.  They were all SURE that they were saved.  But they were wrong to be sure.  They did not live Christian lives and in the end were treated the same as unbelievers.

PLEASE, address the scriptures that I have posted twice now.  Tell me what you think they mean.  Address this one also.

How do you reconcile this passage with saved once saved always?

MK writes,  “all we are doing really is allowing God to work through us, because without Him we wouldn’t be capable of doing these works.  This I think, is what Paul means when he says that “So no man may boast”.  The Catholic idea is that a baby is baptized and given the gift of faith.  At that point the baby is justified.  However, as the baby grows, she must keep the commandments and do works in order to remain justified.  If she commits a mortal sin she could lose her justification.  In that way, the Catholic argues that initial salvation is by God’s grace and not by works.  However, meritorious works are later required.  That bottom line of that thinking is that works are required for salvation.  However, according to Paul, “to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.” (Romans 4:2)  The Bible doesn’t make the distinction you are drawing.

Twelve Oaks has it right.  For those who are “In Christ.”  You are not IN Christ simply because you receive the Eucharist.  That is “works.”

MK —Cradle Catholic described your theology in a previous thread:
“Pray, Pay and Obey—and you shall be saved.”  More pablum for pew
sitters.

If the clergy cannot answer challenging questions they need a new line of work.  Red beanies and fancy vestments no longer intimate “discerning” Catholics.

The irony here is that we have people of good will (the laity) making all these points for and against church positions in dogma, doctrine and hierarchy.  Is not strange that no clergy person has entered the discussion?  IMO this futhers the case of poor leadership within the church and having so many ill equipped to teach on matters of faith.
Three square a day and free room and board —sounds like a nice job, but no Holy Spirit-filled men.  This is what they turned out in our seminaries.  It he has a pulse —sign him up because our ranks are getting too thin.

mk, thank you for all your hard work.  You’ve done quite a good job explaining things.  I would second the comment way, way back that cited the forums at www.catholic.com as a place for further discussion when this board closes. (Thanks to the mods for reopening it.)  And as for the live call-in show, yes they do have to cut some people off.  That’s because there’s usually a bunch of other people waiting to ask a question or speak their peace.  If the caller seems unsatisfied with the depth of the answer, the program hosts remind listeners/callers that there is an apologetics hotline which can be called for a longer or more in-depth discussion.

mk, as a Chicagoan, I hope you have the opportunity to visit the north side, and specifically the perpetual adoration chapel at St. Stanislaus Kostka, right off the Kennedy at Noble St. 

And I’d add a thumbs-up to those who had good things to say about Jeff Cavins’ Bible Study.  Wonderful.  But what do I know?  I’m just a “mindless” cradle Catholic who believes what the Church teaches.  I guess I don’t use my brain, just like our “mindless” priests who know less about Scripture than those thinking Catholics in the pews.  Hey, maybe the clergy should sit in on the Cavins’ Bible Studies so that they can have a knowledgeable lay leader – you know, a real Scripture scholar – teach ‘em a thing or two.

May the Holy Spirit guide us all in our journey.

Nice try Dan.  And of course Cradle, Faithful and Tweleve Oaks have not done an equally good job of explaining their points as well?  I guess you forgot to include them in your praise of MK?  I suppose in your theology Catholics of good conscience cannot disagree nor should topics be discussed.  Then again, you did admit you are mindless and don’t use your brain.

MK, thanks again for the reply.  I appreciate your interest in pursuing so many of these issues all at once! The parable of the virgins is not about losing salvation.  There is no indication that the virgins without oil were believers who lost eternal life.  Rather, they were people who were not prepared when the bridegroom came.  Jesus is using this parable to warn people of the importance of being ready when the King comes to set up His kingdom.  Those who are not ready when He comes will not enter the kingdom.  This parable follows the Jewish wedding customs which are a bit too lengthy to post here but would be very helpful for someone interested in pursuing this parable further.

mk writes -“The parable of the virgins is most certainly about being saved…...”
I think you are mistaken what the point of the parable is. It is about being ready for the return of Christ and not about being saved. Verse 13 sums this up when Jesus says- “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.

Mk writes “Faithful, The question is that authority from God or men? The other issue is does this authority err even matters of faith and morals? That to has been shown it does.
But the same question must be asked of your authority…the authority that taught you.
I have shown that Catholic Teaching in no way contradicts scripture, is backed up by scripture and was given to the Church by Jesus Himself.  You have shown me no scriptural basis for those whom you give authority in your own church…”
I don’t know how you can say that the RCC does not contradict Scripture when the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception and sin free life directly contradicts Romans 3:9, 5:12. Secondly, church leadership is to be by married men and celibacy. See I Timothy 3:4.

Mk writes “So I ask you:  Is the authority that taught you to dissent from the Catholic Church from God and how do you know? 

I know.  Because Scripture tells me so.  How do you know?”
My dissent from the Catholic church comes the authority of the Scripture which is inspired-inerrant while the RCC is not. It is capable of error and has erred. Many examples have been given here. One can easily compare what the Scripture says about various doctrines and practices if the RCC and see they don’t line up with Scripture. Jesus Himself held people accountable to know the Scriptures.

Mk writes “Also, by definition, if the authority was given to the Church then it must be true. 
And lastly, the Church Voice is actually the Voice of God.  The voice of the Holy Spirit.  He speaks through the Pope, but the pope is not He.
The pope is simply a physical vehicle through which the Holy Spirit speaks.
To say the Church is wrong, is to say the Holy Spirit is wrong, which is to say that God is wrong.
Did God or did God not give the Church the Authority with a capital “A” that she claims?”
You can believe that the pope speaks via the Holy Spirit but that does not mean its true. There are things popes have said is heresy.
As for the church having a authority with a “A” that depends. What it does not have the “authority” to do is to teach error. That is the primary issue. Has it always spoken the truth?

Twelve,

“to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.” (Romans 4:2)

Exactly!  Works are expected!  Not as a favor, but as a DUE…

Again, you are taking the passage out of context.  He is trying to show that Abraham was not favored because of anything He did.  He was favored because God favored Him.  Had Abraham chosen to walk away, would God still have made him the father of all nations?????

No!  His belief caused him to DO.  He could have walked away, still believing, but he would have lost the promise.  Not because God walked away, but because Abraham would have waked away.  Many believers were lost because even though they believed the words of Jesus, they walked away. 

Look at Judas.

How much more “in Christ” could someone be?  He was baptized.  He was an apostle.  He was in the INNER circle.  And yet he WALKED AWAY!  Do you believe that Judas is in heaven?  How about Satan?  Satan believes in God.  He totally “gets” it.  He was the highest angel in heaven.  The dude was ON TOP!  Living IN Heaven.  Part of the Kingdom.  But He got thrown out because he wouldn’t COMPLY. 

Was Judas NEVER one of God’s own?  Was Satan never one of God’s own?

I think you confuse what we mean by justification.  The justification came when Jesus arose from the dead.  The deed was done.  If a Christian walks away, Jesus death is not nullified.  The crucifixion doesn’t become meaningless.  It simply means that that person will not be benefiting from it.  The justification is still there, by virtue of Jesus’ death and resurrection, not by virtue of our acceptance of it.

Otherwise, I EVERYONE walked away, you would be saying that Jesus did not accomplish anything.  But He did, even if not one single person followed Him.  His saving power does not rely on our acceptance.  Its an objective fact.  It remains no matter what WE do.  HE did it. Not us.

So no matter how many of us change our minds, we are still “saved”.  All of us. 

If I was drowning and you threw me a life perserver, you will have attempted to save me.  If I accept the life preserver I will live.  But if I don’t accept it, that does not change the fact that you threw it!

I could even put the life preserver on for a 10 minutes then take it off and drown.  It still wouldn’t change that YOU had done what had to be done to save me.  My actions do not affect yours.

If I am saved no matter what I do, then I no longer have free will!  What if I no longer WANT to be saved?  Am I not allowed to change my mind?  That flies in the face of free will!  God does not “make” us do anything. 

If we are not fit to be temples of the Holy Spirit, He will leave.  And who could blame Him.  But it will be due to OUR actions, not His.

Reference this recent essay by Peter Kreeft.

Faithful,

I know.  Because Scripture tells me so.  How do you know?”

I know, because God told me so.  Through scripture.  I trust God.  Do you?  Do you doubt that He will do as He promised?  He promised to protect the Church, the original Church, and He said the Holy Spirit would work through Peter.  Peter would pass on that authority to the next guy if Jesus hadn’t come back yet.  And He didn’t.  This is what giving the keys meant.  This is what is meant in Isaiah.

I agree with Faithful.  It also took until the 1950’s for the church to “teach” the “truth?” that Mary was assumed body and soul into Heaven.
The evidence, please?  This is not truth—but opinion.  Scripture is the final authority rather than the pope.  If the Spirit resides in all believers, what makes the pope more correct than any other Christian?  You may test any pronoucement against the Word for evidence of Truth.

MK writes, “Had Abraham chosen to walk away, would God still have made him the father of all nations?????”  Yes, the covenant promises to Abraham were unconditional.  That’s why only God walked between the animal pieces in Genesis 15.

Dan,

Hail friend, and Thank You God for sending me another Catholic!

I am on the North Side, well the Northwest Side…St. Paul of the Cross in Park Ridge.  We too have a perpetual Adoration chapel…Amazing.  I have been to St. Stans a number of times.  Beautiful.  I always point it out to anyone in the car when we see it from the highway…“That church is amazing”, I say.  and of course they reply “We know moooooother!”

We have probably crossed paths somewhere.

Don’t desert me!  I feel like a hamster running on a wheel!  ;)

Actually, Dan, all the clergy I know would not darken the door of a Bible Study class, not even a class where Jeff Cavins was speaker.  That’s a fact- from 10 years of experience.

I once told a friend (deacon at the time, and a priest now) that I did not believe in Purgatory, and when I die, I was certain I was going straight to Heaven, he called me “presumptuous” in fact, I think he said I committed the ‘sin’ of presumption.  I told him it was not presumptuous.  I just read the Bible & I believed God.

I have been accused by fellow Catholics of “sounding Protestant” in some of my views. Yet, all that’s different between my faith journey & theirs is I’ve read Scripture and I believe it.  It’s so simple – God is trustworthy.  I learned more about who God is by reading the Bible, and believing Him.  I used to think of God as the “God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament” – at least in His character.  I was wrong.

This morning, I listened to Catholic radio at a time I do not normally tune in.  I heard a program about the campaign by Catholics to have a 5th Marian doctrine declaring the Blessed Mother “Co-Redemptrix”.  The man that anchored the program said that’s how the other 4 doctrines about Mary began, saying people campaigned the Vatican for it.

Is that true?  If so, it looks like that’s how we got so many doctrines that are left of center: Purgatory, the sinless Mary, and even other practices that are left of center – like communicating with people that are no longer alive on earth, no matter who they are (Mary, St. Jude, St. Joseph, or our own family members.)  There is NO New Testament basis for that – only the book of Maccabees, which has its place, but not for doctrine.

Only God is omnipresent.  If everyone on this blog is praying to Mary at the same time, it gives her the same attributes of God – Mary is not omnipresent.  If she has power to do anything now, it comes from God and Him alone.

Jesus’ church is not swung by popular demand.  My jaw dropped, as I listened to the information on that program today.  It is false – we are warned to weed out beliefs like that.  The man on the program had himself worked up into near frenzy about Mary and her role in our salvation.

I am sure his intentions, and the rest of the people wanting to elevate Mary to astronomic heights, are good.  But like the Bereans, we need to search the Scriptures and hold fast to what is TRUE; we are not to create new beliefs based on what the majority thinks.

What would St. Paul think about the attempts to make Mary co-Redemptorix?  And St. Peter?  Both were humble men that taught the faith as they received it directly from the Holy Spirit.

I write from northern California, a liberal state.  I am in the Diocese of San Jose.  Google “Metro – The Diocese of San Jose, the most gay-friendly diocese in the nation” and you’ll see what we face here.  It’s tough being a conservative citizen.  It’s a downright battle to be a conservative Catholic here.  The parish featured in the Metro article November 2009 is working FOR same-sex marriage.

Folks – we need to get on the same page as ALL like-minded people that want to maintain good and healthy family values in this country, no matter what their denomination.  The “Invisible Church” of Jesus is Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage between one man and one woman, against embryonic stem cell research, against cloning and designer babies, and it is His Bride, waiting for Him to come again, where we can live in peace and harmony.

But there will be trials until that time.  We all need to EDIFY each other – building each other up, and like Barnabas, encouraging each other, and with the Word, we need to teach, to correct, and reproof each other, when needed.

We need priests AND BISHOPS to put their noses in the Bible – and teach and preach the WORD, the ‘fullness’ of the Word, not just the parts they like or to tweak what they don’t like.  And frankly, it is disrespectful to everyone in Heaven to focus so much on any saint that is in Heaven, when the focus of all saints (even Mary) is on Jesus.  We will all throw our crowns down at HIS feet, and give HIM the glory, forever.  That is not to diminish Mary.  But we need to put her role into its proper perspective.

There is only ONE that is “worthy” – the sinless, spotless, holy Son of God, our brother, Jesus, the Bridegroom of the Church Universal, for whom we wait, and to whom EVERY knee will bow and declare Him “Faithful & True”.

The devil is a deceiver.  He and his demons mimic everything good.  We must all be on guard – vigilant – prepared to not accept anything we know differs from Scripture, the gold standard of measure.  Only the Holy Spirit is 100% trustworthy, because He is omniscient.  Everyone else is capable of error, even popes, just look at church history.

I would love to have a survey done in the United States on each and every priest asking this question:  “Do you believe the Bible is the Holy Spirit inspired word of God, that it is 100% inerrant, and would you be willing to die for it?”  How about the folks on this blog – how would YOU answer that question?

MK writes, “He is trying to show that Abraham was not favored because of anything He did.  He was favored because God favored Him.”  MK, I couldn’t agree with you more!  Paul is arguing that a person is not justified by works; he is justified by faith.  Exhibit A is Abraham who was justified by faith and not by works.  That’s why Rom 4:2 is the death knell to the idea that James is saying that Abraham was justified by faith before God.

Editors!

I LOVE Peter Kreeft pronounced Creft… ;)

Might I suggest that we all take a moment to read what he has to say and then come back.

Also, I’d like to take this opportunity to suggest that we take a moment to pray together.

God, if you’re not busy with another blog, would you please grace us with the presence of mind to know your will.  These are tough questions with even tougher answers.  Please help us to respect one another, play fair and remember that if it’s not about Love, it’s not about You.

Know that no matter what “side” we claim to be on, the bottom line is that everyone of us loves you…deeply and truly…and only want to do what’s right.  We are not seeking to “be right” in our own eyes, but in Yours alone.

Don’t leave us to our own devices as blood might be drawn, but rather walk with us, teach us, give us open hearts and open minds.  Teach us to be more like You.

Amen

Twelve,

Do you use the term justified and saved synonymously?  Because we don’t.

I don’t think so anyway.  We don’t really talk about “justification” the way you do.

I think the justification is objective, a fact, simply there no matter what.  We have all been “justified”, believers or not.  But saved?  That seems to me to be an entirely different ball of wax.

I’m not even sure we use the word saved the same way.  I’d say we were all saved, by the fact that the crucifixion/resurrection took place.  But I don’t think “saved” in that sense means automatic entry into heaven. 

Maybe we need to take a moment to define our words?

LOL,

On my blog we call them captcha’s.  I don’t what you call them on here, but you know that thing you have to type in before the blog will accept your comment?  First I got “Friends”, then I got “Himself”, now I have “Today”...think He’s talkin’ to us???

On Peter Kreeft!  Fabulous.

Faithful.  This is an example of the Pope speaking but not infallibly.  I agree with everything I read, but I am not bound to it.  I once asked my priest what constituted Doctrine….how we knew that the pope was speaking from the chair…and he said that EVERYTHING the pope said should be listened to…encyclicals and papal bulls, speeches, writings…all of it was worth heeding, but that it was not doctrine nor infallible.

Twelve, you brought up that popes have committed heresy in the past.  I agree.  The “men” did.  But when the Holy Spirit spoke through them, even the bad ones, they could not err.  Because it was not them that was speaking.  It was God.

Perhaps it would ease your mind to know that popes have only made two infallible statements in the last 150 years!

Cradle, once again you have made some excellent points! And I still like your gold standard

Another important consideration that people forget, particularly evangelicals,  pertains to the way in which people interpret the Bible.  If we have an inerrant Bible but then use an interpretative process that is erroneous, we may get a result that is little better than if we had an erroneous Bible.  For example, the allegorical method of interpretation championed by Origen is fraught with problems and opens the door for a truckload of error to enter. 

The Catholic Church tries to solve this problem in part by creating an infallible interpreter.  However, there are a couple of problems with that approach.  First, that infallible role is not supported by Scripture. Second, many of the Catholic doctrines involve the use of allegory, preference for hidden or obscure meanings over the plain meaning of texts, the use of typology where the Bible does not indicate it exists and the willingness to put tradition on an equal authoritative footing.  That type of methodology can lead one astray from biblical truth even if one argues that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

All that is to say, that I agree with your statement about the importance of the inspired, inerrant, authoritative Scriptures.  We also need to be as diligent in regard to the way in which we interpret the Scriptures.

Twelve,

You cannot separate Abrahams faith from his works. Where does one end and the other begin?

Cradle,  Here is another point that comes to mind in relation to one of your earlier points.  The Catholic Church has made a major issue pertaining to the sinlessness of Mary.  The argument, in part, suggests that she should be sinless in order to give rise to a sinless son.  However, the parallel issue is the Word of God.  If what is said about Mary is true, then one could argue that the writers of Scripture should also have been sinless.  However, nobody seems very concerned about their sin natures.

The answer to both of these issues is that sinful people gave rise to perfection.  The reason that the prophets and writers of Scripture did not error in what they wrote is because the Holy Spirit moved them to write the inspired Word of God.  The reason that Mary’s sin nature did not pass to Jesus is because the Holy Spirit overshadowed her, so that she could conceive a sinless Savior.

Cradle and Faithful,  you are both on the same track.
As for the interpretation of Scriptures, why cannot Catholics
Protestants and Evangelicals find unity on common core tenents
of Christian belief?  When will the RCC come down from their
high horse and be willing to dialog with other Christian leaders?
The pope has met with Jewish rabbi’s and Muslim clerics yet our
own USA bishops consider it “taboo” to even talk with fellow
Chrisitan ministers regarding areas of common agreement.  Seems
we are too prideful in that attitude.  What are our bishops afraid of?

Faithful,

I don’t know how you can say that the RCC does not contradict Scripture when the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception and sin free life directly contradicts Romans 3:9, 5:12. Secondly, church leadership is to be by married men and celibacy. See I Timothy 3:4.

First, being married or not, is not doctrine.  It is custom.  Men were married in the early church, are still married in the Eastern Rite and could be married again tomorrow if the Pope declares it so.  For now, in the world we live in, it has been found to be more prudent for priests to remain unmarried.  Celibacy comes from not marrying.  Not an end in itself. 

Woman however can never be priests as Jesus, who LOVED women, did not ordain them.  To really understand this would take a longer post, which I will be happy to do if you’d like, but suffice it to say that the Pope cannot change what Christ instituted.  Jesus did not institute non marriage, and thus it can change.  Jesus did however institute a male priesthood, and no pope has the authority to change that.

Next,  there is scriptural evidence for Mary’s Immacualte Conception.  I’ll be happy to give it to you (to the consternation of KR, I’m sure) if you’d like.  But the Catholic Church did not just pull this out of their hat! 

There is also scriptural precedence for being assumed body and soul into heaven.  Elijah.  And your own belief in the Rapture will have multitudes of people being taken to heaven body and soul.  If God is willing to do that for you and Elijah do you really think He’d be unwilling to it for His own mom?

As for her sin free life…do you think it impossible to love God so much that you did nothing ever to hurt the object of your affection?  What if you were FULL of grace…so much of that Actual Grace that you were rendered incapable of sinning.  If grace is strength in the face of adversity and you are filled with it, then it stands to reason you would be able to withstand every temptation.  Why?  Not because YOU were good, but because you were so infused with grace.  Not to mention, you talk of the Holy Spirit living in you….well, Mary was OVERCOME by the Holy Spirit and Jesus, flesh and blood, little tiny fingers and toes and toothbuds, lived inside of her too.  How could she possible sin with all that goin’ for her?

MK writes, “You cannot separate Abrahams faith from his works. Where does one end and the other begin?” Of course we can separate faith (what we believe) from works (what we do).  We make this separation all of the time in our everyday lives.  We believe that Obama is the President.  However, we may not obey the law of the land.  These are two separate issues.  There is no difference when it comes to the Bible.  Further, James distinguishes between faith and works, and so does Paul.

KR,

If the clergy cannot answer challenging questions they need a new line of work.  Red beanies and fancy vestments no longer intimate “discerning” Catholics.

Yes dear, so you’ve said, and it has been duly noted.  Numerous times.

I’m not talking about separating them in a general way.  I’m talking about Abraham.  Where does Abrahams faith end and his works begin.  If he had said no, would still have had faith?  How do we know that Abraham was ‘faithful’ if not by looking at what he did?

MK, Evangelicals use the word justify to mean “declares righteous.”  When God justifies us, he declares us righteous before Him.  Closely related to that is the idea that Jesus’ righeousness is imputed or reckoned to our account.  Catholics use the word justify to mean that God gives infuses us with righteousness.  When a person is baptized, Catholics say that person is infused with righteousness enabling them to produce righteousness in their lives and keep the commandments, thereby maintaining their right standing before God.

Evangelicals point to Deut 25:1 in support of their idea.  In that passage, the judge justifies a righteous person.  It makes no sense for a judge to “make righteous” someone who is already righteous.  Rather, the judge is declaring that person to be righteous.  It is a forensic determination.  Similarly, the Bible speaks of justifying God.  We don’t make Him righteous; He is already righteous.

Cradle,

Actually, Dan, all the clergy I know would not darken the door of a Bible Study class, not even a class where Jeff Cavins was speaker.

You’ve got to get out more!  I’m teasing.  My own bible class (this will be my third year) is led by the pastor of the church.

Twelve,

MK, Evangelicals use the word justify to mean “declares righteous.”  When God justifies us, he declares us righteous before Him.

Ahhhhh…I see.  I think.

But if a judge declares a person righteous, doesn’t that mean that the person was innocent?  Already righteous?  Isn’t the judge simply recognizing something that is already true?

I mean, if a guy is accused of murder, and he didn’t do it, and the evidence shows that he didn’t do it, isn’t the guy innocent no matter what the judge says?  The judge might have the power to let the guy go, but he doesn’t have the power to make him innocent or guilty, right?  I mean, the judge could still declare him guilty, but the judge would be wrong, because his innocence or guilt is an objective fact and has nothing to do with the judge.  The judge cannot change the Truth.

False analogy, MK.  Payment is required for the penalty.  Someone had to pay the penalty for you in order for you to be set free.  Thus, your righteousness was declared due to Jesus paying your sin debt.  You are not guilt free but only that the penalty was paid for you at the cross.
His death was substitutionary for yours.

MK, if your Pastor is acutally leading a Bible Study class—as you told Cradle —then congratulations.  We need more men like him in my diocese of which they are anemic.  It seems such of our experiences good and bad are probably regional and not the same in each diocese.  Parish priests in my diocese are similar to Cradle’s—-poor leadership.  You clearly belong to a good parish and diocese.  Make sure he does not get transferred.

MK, there is considerable confusion concerning the use of the word saved.  In the Old Testament, more than 95% of the usages of that word pertain to things other than heaven and hell.  It often conveys the idea of deliverance, particularly from physical danger or destruction.  (By the way, on that basis, there is a good argument that the book of James is using “save” in that sense as he writes to the twelve tribes that are scattered).  In the NT the word save often conveys the meaning of deliverance and does not automatically refer to being saved in the sense of having eternal life.  The context determines the meaning.

MK, when a person is regenerated by the Spirit of God on the basis of faith, many of these great doctrines come into play instantly.  The person is declared righteous by God.  The person passes from death to life.  It is said the believer “shall not come under condemnation.”  It is said the believer is adopted into God’s family and is a joint-heir with Christ.  It is said he is a citizen of heaven and an alien in this world.  She is free from the law and redeemed from the slave market of sin to which she will never return.  She is reconciled with God.  She is related to God through propitiation, meaning that God is satisfied with the death of Christ for the payment of sins, she is forgiven trespasses.  She is joined with Christ.  She is a child of God. She is made acceptable in the Beloved, made righteous, sanctified, perfected forever and made to God.  She is delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of the Son.  She is placed on the Rock, Christ Jesus.  She is a gift from God the Father to the Son, Jesus Christ.  She is circumcised in Christ.  She is a partaker of the Holy Spirit and part of a Royal priesthood.  She is part of a chosen generation, a Holy nation and a peculiar people. She is a partner with Christ.  She is light in the Lord and His inheritance.  She is kept by the power of God and held within the great care of God.  She is vitally related to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  She is blessed with the earnest or first-fruits of the Spirit.  She is glorified, a possessor of every spiritual blessing and complete in Him.

I had not intended to make such a long post, but those great truths are so important in relation to this topic, that I could not leave them out.  The God who makes all of these statements about those who trust in Him for eternal life does not unwind these positional and eternal truths from moment to moment as a person either sins or does a good act.  By His grace He has provided these magnificent truths, and by His character He brings

Twelve Oaks, I absolutely commend your commitment to the centrality of the Doctrine of Justification.  This entire blog has been extremely educational and contiues to be so with your comments.  Thank you.

You are not guilt free but only that the penalty was paid for you at the cross.
His death was substitutionary for yours.

See, I don’t think that there is any declaring going on.  This is all new to me, so bare with me.  Jesus died.  By His death, death itself is overcome.  That’s what was bought for us.  We are no longer destined to die, but can now eat of the Tree of Life again.  So there is no need to declare anything.  If I’m hearing you guys right.

I’ll have to do some reading now *sigh* because I’m still not sure what you all mean.  Twelve certainly explained our understanding of baptism correctly.  Our sin was removed.  Gone.  Done.  We were changed.  The Holy Spirit most certainly was infused into us. 

I truly don’t even understand what you mean by righteous…not the way you use it.

Explain?

Are you saying that I am only good because God is good?  Not that I am good because God has given me the grace to be good, but that I am not actually good, God is good and therefore if he says I am good then I too am good?

mk writes-“Faithful,

I don’t know how you can say that the RCC does not contradict Scripture when the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception and sin free life directly contradicts Romans 3:9, 5:12. Secondly, church leadership is to be by married men and celibacy. See I Timothy 3:4.

First, being married or not, is not doctrine.  It is custom.  Men were married in the early church, are still married in the Eastern Rite and could be married again tomorrow if the Pope declares it so.  For now, in the world we live in, it has been found to be more prudent for priests to remain unmarried.  Celibacy comes from not marrying.  Not an end in itself.”
I don’t get it. If you want to call it a custom fine. The result is the same i.e. a denial of the clear teaching of Scripture that married men are to be leaders of the church. The RCC nullifies this by disqualifying married men from being bishops for example by the mere fact they are married.

Ok, MK.  I think maybe we are moving to the heart of the matter now thanks to Faithful.  As a result of man’s fall in the garden, sin entered the world.  The wages (penalty) for sin is death.  If man had never sinned we would never need die but reign with him forever.  However, as a result of Adam, man has a sin nature.  You are declared righteous because you have been coverd (washed) in the blood of the Lamb at the cross because the Father sees you not by what you have done, but moreover, by what Jesus has done for you.  He paid your sin penalty —death.  He exchanged His human life as a penalty paid for all.  Paul says “no man is righteous, no not one.”  But Jesus is.  So when the Father looks at you He sees you in the righteousness of His son —not in the sin nature of which we truly deserve.  This is what is meant in Revelation concerning being “washed in the blood of the Lamb.”  He declared this so in the plan of salvation.  I owed a sin debt I could not pay and He paid a sin debt He did not owe.  PTL !!!

Mk writes-“Next,  there is scriptural evidence for Mary’s Immacualte Conception.  I’ll be happy to give it to you (to the consternation of KR, I’m sure) if you’d like.  But the Catholic Church did not just pull this out of their hat! 
There is also scriptural precedence for being assumed body and soul into heaven.  Elijah.  And your own belief in the Rapture will have multitudes of people being taken to heaven body and soul.  If God is willing to do that for you and Elijah do you really think He’d be unwilling to it for His own mom?
As for her sin free life…do you think it impossible to love God so much that you did nothing ever to hurt the object of your affection?  What if you were FULL of grace…so much of that Actual Grace that you were rendered incapable of sinning.  If grace is strength in the face of adversity and you are filled with it, then it stands to reason you would be able to withstand every temptation.  Why?  Not because YOU were good, but because you were so infused with grace.  Not to mention, you talk of the Holy Spirit living in you….well, Mary was OVERCOME by the Holy Spirit and Jesus, flesh and blood, little tiny fingers and toes and toothbuds, lived inside of her too.  How could she possible sin with all that goin’ for her? “
The problem with so much of this is speculations on what God actually has done. It is true that Enoch and Elijah was taken up to heaven. We know God has done this because His Word says so. The problem with Mary’s assumption is that there is no evidence eyewitness accounts of it in Scripture or history. As for “full of grace” it does not mean one who is in this state is incapable of sinning.  Stephen was also said to be full of grace and power in Acts 6:8. Should we understand that he to was sinless all his life to? Secondly, if you look this phrase up in a NT Greek lexicon you will see that it has nothing to do with sinlessness.

Okay, workin’ this out out loud now.  You are saying that we are bad.  We will always be bad.  We do not deserve anything good.  God is good.  So we can say we “have” good, but not that we “are” good?

And we say that we were bad, but baptism took away that bad, and now we “are” good?

Okay again…

I am reading an article by Jimmy Akin, another amazing Catholic…

Would you guys read it and tell me what you think?  Has he got your take on it down correctly?

errr…I suppose the link would help?

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/righteou.htm

and pay attention especially to these two paragraphs…please.

So a Catholic need have no problems with the forensic/declaratory aspects of justification. God does indeed declare us righteous, and that is nothing with which a Catholic needs to quarrel. A Catholic also does not need to quarrel about which kind of righteousness is the cause and which is the effect, whether God declares a person legally righteous and that, by the miraculous creative power of his word, makes the person actually righteous, or whether God makes the person actually righteous and therefore declares the person legally righteous. This is a matter of indifference in Catholic theology.

Furthermore, when Catholics talk about progressive justification/sanctification, they are again thinking of God making us ontologically righteous. This is almost totally missed by Protestants when they compare the Catholic view of progressive justification to the Protestant idea of sanctification, which is in turn part of the basis on which they say Catholics confuse justification with sanctification. No, Catholics don’t. They recognize that growth in personal holiness (behavioral righteousness) is a separate and subsequent event to initial justification. The confusion is on the part of the Protestant who thinks Catholics are talking about growth in behavioral righteousness when they talk about progressive justification/sanctification. They aren’t. They’re talking about growth in actual righteousness.

This is sometimes a difficult concept for Protestants to grasp since they have heard so many sermons about righteousness being an all or nothing thing that they have trouble understanding the concept of how righteousness can grow. This is one of the things that keeps them boxed into a two-fold understanding of righteousness. However, the problem is solved when one grasps the concept of actual righteousness, which is not a one-dimensional but a two-dimensional concept.

MK writes. “How do we know that Abraham was ‘faithful’ if not by looking at what he did?” I’m not sure just why you are asking this question, so I’m not certain just how to answer.  One point is that Abraham’s justification depended not on his faithfulness, but on his faith.  He believed God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness quite apart from anything he either did or failed to do.  The only way we would know he had faith is by what the Scripture says about him.  Likewise, the only way we know whether he was faithful is by what the Scripture says.  As it turns out, sometimes he was faithful to do what God wanted him to do, and other times he was not faithful in doing what God wanted him to do.  Regardless, God declared him righteous on the basis of his faith.

In using the example of Abraham, James is responding to a hypothetical objector who is arguing that there is absolutely no connection at all between faith and works.  James disagrees and points to Abraham as exhibit A.  Abraham had faith, and his faith caused him to be willing to obey God even to the point of sacrificing his son.  Abraham was justified before God by faith.  He was also justified before men by works, particularly in regard to his willingness to sacrifice Isaac.  Even today, all major religions hold Abraham in high regard.  Much of that esteem for Abraham rests on the account of what happened with his son Isaac on the mountain.

Catholics argue that James is saying that Abraham was justified before God by works.  However, that is a contradiction with Romans 4:2 that says he was not justified before God by works.

MK, I am saying that on our own, we have no righteousness.  All humans have a sin nature as a result of the fall.  This is why we require a Savior.  God—Holy as He is cannot look upon sin—that’s you and me.  This is why we must be (declared) righteous by someone without sin.  No man can pay your penalty because they, too, are sinful.  The Bible says we were born in iniquity (sin).  If we were able to save ourselves, Jesus did not need to die on the cross.  This is why His blood is considered “precious blood”—even by Catholics It is “saving” blood.  The shedding of His blood (atonement) is the only—the only means of salvation.

Faithful,

(I have found that by hitting the enter bar twice you can actually make spaces between paragraphs…)

Phillip was full of grace and power at the moment…it was new…we can, any of us, be filled with grace, for a period of time.  Actual Grace, that is.  Like a power drink for want of a better example.  When I do something that gains me grace, like receiving the Eucharist, going to confession, making a sacrifice…I get a “hit” of grace.  This is what happened to Phillip.  He was filled with the graces needed to get the job done.

Now Stephen, filled with grace and power, was working great wonders and signs among the people.

He could have done none of those things without grace…and an enormous amount of it.

But, Mary, was full of Grace even before Gabriel spoke to her.  Before she assented, before she conceived.  And she continued to be in a state “of Grace” or how else could she raise Jesus? 

It was sanctifying grace (again we believe it was infused) was given to her without benefit of baptism.  She was free from original sin.  She was FULL of sanctifying grace.  She was also full of actual grace, the type Phillip enjoyed, for her whole life.  A gift.

God stated that Mary and Satan would be mortal enemies forever.  This means that Mary was opposed to sin in the most fundamental of ways.  She could not abide it.  It was abhorrent to her.  It was declared so in Genesis…

Genesis 3:15

<B>I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”</i>

<B>No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: “and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel” (Genesis 3:15). The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically. The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent’s head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. God puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent. Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man, i.e. in sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin.</i>

Here is an excellent article by Scott Hahn….

Mk writes- “Furthermore, when Catholics talk about progressive justification/sanctification, they are again thinking of God making us ontologically righteous. This is almost totally missed by Protestants when they compare the Catholic view of progressive justification to the Protestant idea of sanctification, which is in turn part of the basis on which they say Catholics confuse justification with sanctification. No, Catholics don’t. They recognize that growth in personal holiness (behavioral righteousness) is a separate and subsequent event to initial justification. The confusion is on the part of the Protestant who thinks Catholics are talking about growth in behavioral righteousness when they talk about progressive justification/sanctification. They aren’t. They’re talking about growth in actual righteousness.”
Not sure how there can be a “ view of progressive justification”  when Romans 5:1 speaks of justification as a one time legal declaration with continuing results and not an ongoing process. Sanctification on the other hand is the process of our becoming more and more righteous in Christ. It is becoming more like Christ. It is putting sin out of your life and pursuing righteousness and holiness. This process of sanctification is only possible because we have been justified in Christ and have the Holy Spirit working in us.

mk writes-“Faithful,

I know.  Because Scripture tells me so.  How do you know?”

I know, because God told me so.  Through scripture.  I trust God.  Do you?  Do you doubt that He will do as He promised?  He promised to protect the Church, the original Church, and He said the Holy Spirit would work through Peter.  Peter would pass on that authority to the next guy if Jesus hadn’t come back yet.  And He didn’t.  This is what giving the keys meant.  This is what is meant in Isaiah.”
I don’t know where Jesus promised to protect the church from error comes from. If anything the apostles warned there would be false teachers that would come into the church itself and decieve many. Secondly, where in history do we see Peter passing on the “keys” to a supreme leader like a pope? When did this supposedly happen?

Dear 12 Oaks:

You say that OT believers did not lose salvation but were saved by faith without keeping the law?

Apart from the obvious exceptions, such as Abraham, Jesus says that God sent Him because the people were perishing (JN: 3:16).

Faithful,

I urge you to read the entire article.  It answers all of those questions in a very simple format (probably even simpler for you since I had to learn an entirely different vocabulary.

It stems from our different understanding of the terms righteousness, grace, saved, etc…

mk writes-“ On Peter Kreeft!  Fabulous.
Faithful.  This is an example of the Pope speaking but not infallibly.  I agree with everything I read, but I am not bound to it.  I once asked my priest what constituted Doctrine….how we knew that the pope was speaking from the chair…and he said that EVERYTHING the pope said should be listened to…encyclicals and papal bulls, speeches, writings…all of it was worth heeding, but that it was not doctrine nor infallible.”
Interesting.  This may explain why there are so many differences of beliefs in the church about various matters. The pope is important no doubt, but since he does not always speak infallibly a catholic can dismiss what he says if he doesn’t like it. This also creates a problem in calling the pope Vicar of Christ i.e.  implies that he has the same power and authority that Christ had over the Church. Would this not mean that all that he does say is infallible?

Terry, Thanks.  I’m not sure I understand your point the connection between your two statements.

Terry, yes, 12 Oaks is correct.
Abraham, Moses —-It was their faith in which God declared them righteous.  As you and I point back to Jesus—as Messiah, they, too looked “forward” to the coming Messiah.

And everyone knows that one cannot keep the law.  We (and they) are flawed people as a result of the fall.

MK, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.”  If the woman in that passage refers to Mary, who is “you?”

mk writes “..Faithful,
(I have found that by hitting the enter bar twice you can actually make spaces between paragraphs…)
Phillip was full of grace and power at the moment…it was new…we can, any of us, be filled with grace, for a period of time.  Actual Grace, that is.  Like a power drink for want of a better example.  When I do something that gains me grace, like receiving the Eucharist, going to confession, making a sacrifice…I get a “hit” of grace.  This is what happened to Phillip.  He was filled with the graces needed to get the job done.
Now Stephen, filled with grace and power, was working great wonders and signs among the people.
He could have done none of those things without grace…and an enormous amount of it.”
Thanks for the tip between paragraphs. I have to say when we get into the doctrines and practices of the RCC it has to make your head spin. You claim to receive some grace by “receiving the Eucharist, going to confession, making a sacrifice”. I’m sure you can see what the question must be: where in the NT does it say by eating the Lord’s supper (Eucharist) you get some grace? Same question for the other 2 examples you give.

KR,

I’m not talking about saving ourselves.  I’m talking about Jesus dying on the cross and saving us.  But you guys seem to be saying that we are pure because he is pure and not that we are pure because he died and cleansed us.  We take on his righteousness…we are not right.  He is.  So we “borrow” his.  Where as we believe that we are actually cleansed and “made” right.

You say we He is right, therefore we can claim to be right because we are His.

I say, He is right(eous) and he offered up his goodness, perfection, traded it so to speak, and now I too AM right(eous). 

I believe I actually AM clean.  You believe I am still dirty but get the benefits as if I were clean.

Lets say I am poor.  Filthy dirty, poor and I smell pretty bad.  I want to go into the finest restaurant in Chicago.  Jesus is the owner of the restaurant.  He is wearing the finest tuxedo, smells awesome and has some great shoes to boot!  He says that He has paid my dinner bill and that he will allow me to come into the restaurant.  When the other patrons stare, Jesus says, hey, I own the joint.  He can come in because I say so…He “declares” that I am worthy because He has the authority to declare this…besides, the bill has already been paid so from a legalistic standpoint, there is no reason I can’t eat the meal.

In my scenario, Jesus leads me to a bathroom, gives me a bar of soap, a new set of clothes and then lets me in…Jesus “changed” me.  He didn’t say I am fine the way I was.  He cleaned me up, washed away the dirt.  I am no longer the smelly, dirty guy that came in off the street.  I have been transformed into a new guy…now I am “good”.  I’m not bad, but declared, I’m actually better….

This is a wonderful discussion!  It could NEVER happen in the parishes I frequent, with the car-wash of Sacraments & worship.  Thank you to ALL!!

Twelve – you know more than I do, regarding references to the Bible’s inerrancy.  I have no formal training - other than 12 years of Catholic school…where I had an excellent education, but I learned nothing of eternal value.  Salvation was works based, where I tried to please a holy and insatiable God.  I was supposed to love Him, but, like some famous person once said, “Love God?  Sometimes I don’t even LIKE Him!”  Thanks to Him, who drew me close by reading His Word, I can now say I love Him.

So about the Bible, Origen, and other theologian’s interpretations: I believe we must use the Bible to interpret the Bible.  It never contradicts itself.  The Bible is consistent, when read in Toto.

As for Origen – he castrated himself, I believe, trying to be the poster boy for what Jesus mentioned in Matthew Chapter 19.  It’s a good example of people going too far, promoting practices God never asked of them. 

As for Mary’s Immaculate Conception – the best explanation I’ve heard is that at Mary’s conception, she was ‘favored’ by God, and given grace.  Grace is God’s UNMERITED favor; she received more at her conception than any other woman.  So Mary can’t boast – it was all God’s doing.

MK – I am so happy for you and your parish that you have a pastor that not only attends, but LEADS a Scripture study.  Wow.  It made my day to know that.  Now if the people feel comfortable in speaking up and sharing their deepest thoughts about what you are reading, that would be even better.  While priests do not come to Bible studies in our area, it seems like when priests are around for anything, people clam up and expect that only the priest has insight worth sharing.  It’s a Catholic “Cat got your tongue”.

Regarding Abraham and faith – I will read the earlier posts in detail tomorrow, but for now, I’ll add that God is VERY gracious, and He even put Sarah in the Faith Hall of Fame – Hebrews Chapter 11.  This, while Sarah laughed when she heard she was going to conceive Isaac.  Not a good picture of faith.  On the other hand, Abraham DID trust God, enough to go ahead with the sacrifice of Isaac, until the angel stopped him. 

FAITH – Forsaking all, I trust Him.

I was thinking about how people call Mary the “spouse” of the Holy Spirit.  It occurred to me that the purpose of marriage is to be one with another person, in all ways, figuratively and literally.  That’s the way God designed it – and why same-sex unions ought not to be ‘marriage’ – because the oneness, in every sense, is impossible.

With God saying the ‘two shall become one’ – if we call Mary the Holy Spirit’s ‘spouse’ would that not inadvertently make her deity?  I don’t believe that, of course, but I do think it is an unintended consequence of going overboard on the doctrines concerning Mary.

It is the CHURCH universal that is the “spouse” of Jesus the Bridegroom, and we collectively, are to keep ourselves spotless and holy, without blemish, although we, as a great big whole lot of people, ALL have our flaws and failings – we are sinners, and the Bible is like a mirror, where we can see the spinach between our collective teeth!

Thanks be to God He is merciful, and patient and He wants everyone to come to Him, as we are. He just loves us too much to let us stay that way!  In Him, we are a ‘new creation’.  New wine skins = we are clothed in HIS righteousness, and saved by God’s grace, through our faith, and for good works.

Justification – Jesus did it all, paying the price WE owed, (the wages of sin is death) and God the Father accepted the offering of His perfect Lamb on our behalf.  A free gift – all we need to do is to accept, and with God’s grace, prodding us to say “yes!” to Him, we do!  Back tomorrow- thanks!

PS - The Catholic Register is great!  I once wrote a letter to the editor to them that was against the grain - and they PRINTED it, they are more “balanced” then many secular newspapers!  I always wanted to thank the editors for that - so if any are reading this - thank you!

To KR1000:

Scripture is not the final authority. Nowhere does the bible say that. It does not say if there is disagreement go to the Bible, but to the church. The church decides who is right and who is wrong. That is why there can only be one church. If someone does not listen to that church, as many of you do, then you are finished. The church is the final authority.

So, Terry, and if the church authority is wrong?  Then what?
Whom do you trust —God’s inerrant Word or ?

Faithful,

Lol…as to your other post, I already posted on the story of the keys and what it meant to a Jew…cross referenced it to Isaiah.  Handing the keys over meant something.  It wasn’t just a gesture.  When a king gave the keys to his steward, he put the steward in charge.  Everyone understood that while the king was gone, the steward would stand in his place.  The gospels don’t talk about passing them on, first, because that was understood.  Jesus uses Isaiah to illustrate what he was saying and every Jew that heard him knew exactly what was meant.  You and I might not recognize such a colloquialism since we don’t have kings or stewards, but the Jews knew.  They understood that Jesus was handing over HIS authority to Peter until He returned.  The apostles expected Jesus to return within their generation so they would have talked about setting up a succession.

But this too was understood.  If the royal steward died before the king returned, the keys were passed on to the next in line. 

This is the institution of the papacy. 

As for the Catholic Church making your head spin…helloooo….justification, sanctification, infute, infuse…these are all new concepts for me.

Well not concepts as much as vocabulary.

As for grace…sanctifying and actual…

This gets back to different words for similar ideas.  Apparently, from what I’m reading, we didn’t always differentiate between the two, but when protestants started using different definitions of justification, we
had to clarify what we meant by grace.

There is grace which we receive which sanctifies us, makes us holy.  I believe, tho I’m probably wrong, that you call this justifying us.  Our first “dose” of this type of grace is bestowed on us at baptism.  This grace (as someone said is infused) changes us.  Makes us different people, set apart, anointed if you will.

The other grace we call actual grace.  This is what I think, tho I’m probably wrong again, is what your sanctification is.  Your growing in faith. 

We call this growth “keeping the faith” or “practicing” our faith.  It’s the growth process.  Part of the whole salvation process.  Yes, our souls were permanently changed (what you would call justified) at baptism, but we believe that our conversion is ongoing…a day to day operation…for this we receive constant grace or actual grace.  What we call grace and ongoing conversion you call sanctification.

You agree that we grow in holiness, you just don’t call it by the same name.

justification/baptism(santifying grace) 

sanctification/works (actual grace)

see?

There are still differences of course.  While we never lose the grace, we can lose the gifts that go with it…ie, eternal reward.

Terry writes
“To KR1000:
Scripture is not the final authority. Nowhere does the bible say that. It does not say if there is disagreement go to the Bible, but to the church. The church decides who is right and who is wrong. That is why there can only be one church. If someone does not listen to that church, as many of you do, then you are finished. The church is the final authority.”

The church is an authority and fallible one at that. The issue is: is the church always right? Can it err?
History shows that it is has in a number of well known examples such as the inquisition, the Joan Arc affair and Galileo.

KR:

Infant baptism replaces circumcision because the latter is not an adult thing. Confirmation replaces bar-mitzvah when a person comes to the age of consent.

Hey everyone !!!  Terry believes the church authority is correct re all matters.  Finally, a “perfect” church run by “perfect” men.

Fasting before midnight on Saturday night before communion on Sunday.
Changed later to only 3 hours before mass.
Changed later to only 1 hour before mass.

Terry, which Pope’s were right and which Pope’s got it wrong?

If you really think that God cares if one of His own is Catholic, Protestant or Evangelical more than He does YOUR personal relationship with Him —then go ahead, knock yourself out.

History shows that it is has in a number of well known examples such as the inquisition, the Joan Arc affair and Galileo.

First it did not err on Gallileo, but I refuse to have that debate here.

Secondly, which part of ONLY on faith and morals is the Church inerrant?

Please explain to me how the Galileo affair or Joan of Arc were matters of doctrine?

And then PLEEEEEASE tell me what it will take to make you stop this insistence on proving that the clergy can be wrong.  NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE is arguing with you.  It’s probably the ONLY thing we have all agreed on in the last 400 comments! 

Seriously,  what are the magic words?  I’ll say them.  I give.  UNCLE!

Just tell me what to say and I’ll say it!  There are so many incredible arguments, discussions and debates going here, I just cannot fathom why you keep harping on the only thing that NO ONE is disputing.

Am I missing something?????

MK, Aikin’s article is interesting, and he probably clarifies some wrong understandings various protestants have raised from time to time.  However, there is still some major differences between the Catholics and evangelicals on this point. 
First, there is a big difference concerning the issue of eternal security.  Catholics say we can lose justification; most evangelicals reject that concept.  Second, a Catholic who commits a mortal sin returns to a state of justification only by repenting, faith and confession to a priest.  Evangelicals would characterize that process as one of works, because the Catholic must refrain from certain works and do other works in order to remain justified. 
Third the Catholic list of mortal sins is quite arbitrary and rather lengthy.  One list at a catholic website includes abortion, anger, adulterers, amending the words of the Holy Bible, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, (Eternal sin), carousing, cowards, defrauders, dissensions, disrespect towards parents, drunkenness, enmities, envy, factions, faithless, false witness (liars), fornicators, greed, Holy Communion received while in a state of mortal sin, idolatry, impurity, jealousy, licentiousness, love and practice falsehoods, male prostitution, murderers, Polluted, quarrelling, sodomites, sorcery, strife, thieves (steal/robbers).  [note: some are nouns other verbs; I didn’t correct the grammar]. 
That list amounts to a denial of justification by faith, because a person who commits any of these sins is no longer justified.
About the only difference between the Catholic system and one of pure works is that the Catholic system states that “initial justification” is by faith.  However, even that justification comes by way of baptism, often without the requirement of faith at all, in the case of infants.
In view of the list of mortal sins it is no wonder that Catholics do not know whether they have eternal life.

KR:

The church cannot make an error, i.e. it is infallible, in teaching Faith and Morals, get that through your head. The instances you mention, inquisition etc., has nothing to do with the deposit of faith.

There is a saying among lawyers that one who seeks to defend himself in court has a fool as a lawyer. The same thing when someone who reads the Bible tries to teach it to others without consensual authority.

Ok, MK.  Let’s just agree that we should not all get so hung up on which CHRISTIAN church one attends by claiming one is superior to the other.
There are Protestants, Evangelical and non-denominational Christians who love and are passionately committed to Christ as are Catholics.  That they are not RC does not make you superior.

Confirmation replaces bar-mitzvah when a person comes to the age of consent.

Actually Terry, this is not true. Infants can be confirmed AND receive the Eucharist.  It’s done all the time in the Eastern Rite.  This is a custom, not a doctrine.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/beliefsteachings/p/Confirmation.htm

Confirmation in the East:
In the Eastern Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) Churches, the three sacraments of initiation are administered at the same time to infants. Children are baptized, confirmed (or “chrismated”), and receive Communion (in the form of the Sacred Blood, the consecrated wine), all in the same ceremony, and always in that order.

Since the timely reception of Baptism is very important, and it would be very hard for a bishop to administer every baptism, the bishop’s presence, in the Eastern Churches, is signified by the use of chrism consecrated by the bishop. The priest, however, performs the confirmation.

Confirmation should NEVER be likened to Bar Mitzvah.  However, you are correct that baptism replaced circumcision as the outward sign of our belonging to God’s covenant.  Remember that everything in the NT came from the OT.  The NT does not replace the OT, it fulfills it.  It raises it to a new level.  A mystical level as opposed to a physical level.  Even tho we cannot “see” the mark of baptism as we can “see” the mark of circumcision, it is still there, just as real.

KR,

Ok, MK.  Let’s just agree that we should not all get so hung up on which CHRISTIAN church one attends by claiming one is superior to the other.
There are Protestants, Evangelical and non-denominational Christians who love and are passionately committed to Christ as are Catholics.  That they are not RC does not make you superior.

I never claimed that it does.  If you read the prayer I said for this very blog you would know that I understand every single one of us loves the Lord with all of hearts.  No one here has the upper hand on that!

Mk writes-“ Faithful,
Lol…as to your other post, I already posted on the story of the keys and what it meant to a Jew…cross referenced it to Isaiah.  Handing the keys over meant something.  It wasn’t just a gesture.  When a king gave the keys to his steward, he put the steward in charge.  Everyone understood that while the king was gone, the steward would stand in his place.  The gospels don’t talk about passing them on, first, because that was understood.  Jesus uses Isaiah to illustrate what he was saying and every Jew that heard him knew exactly what was meant.  You and I might not recognize such a colloquialism since we don’t have kings or stewards, but the Jews knew.  They understood that Jesus was handing over HIS authority to Peter until He returned.  The apostles expected Jesus to return within their generation so they would have talked about setting up a succession.
But this too was understood.  If the royal steward died before the king returned, the keys were passed on to the next in line. 
This is the institution of the papacy.”
There are some major problems with this view. For one if is true that “Jesus was handing over HIS authority to Peter until He returned” then why don’t we see such a deference to Peter in Acts or the letters. For example, Peter is not asked to decide the issue in Acts 15 but James does. (Acts 15:19). Secondly, Peter never refers to himself as the supreme leader of the church or that all Christ authority was given to him alone. What Peter does though in Acts 2:14-38 is to be the first man to open the gates of the kingdom of God by the preaching of the Gospel by which a man is saved. Keep in mind that the RCC insists that all this has to be tied to Rome. Here is what the the Jesuit scholar Joseph Fitzmyer has stated,

“Paul never hints in Romans that he knows that Peter has worked in Rome or founded the Christian church there before his planned visit (cf. 15:20-23). If he refers indirectly to Peter as among the ‘superfine apostles’ who worked in Corinth (2 Cor 11:4-5), he says nothing like that about Rome in this letter. Hence the beginnings of the Roman Christian community remain shrouded in mystery. Compare 1 Thess 3:2-5; 1 Cor 3:5-9; and Col 1:7 and 4:12-13 for more or less clear references to founding apostles of other locales. Hence there is no reason to think that Peter spent any major portion of time in Rome before Paul wrote his letter, or that he was the founder of the Roman church or the missionary who first brought Christianity to Rome. For it seems highly unlikely that Luke, if he knew that Peter had gone to Rome and evangelized that city, would have omitted all mention of it in Acts.” [Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 30].”

Twelve,

Thank you for reading the entire article.  It sure made things clearer for me…

MK, Aikin’s article is interesting, and he probably clarifies some wrong understandings various protestants have raised from time to time.  However, there is still some major differences between the Catholics and evangelicals on this point.

Oh absolutely.  But at least now we know what the heck we’re arguing about!  lol

First, there is a big difference concerning the issue of eternal security.  Catholics say we can lose justification; most evangelicals reject that concept.  Second, a Catholic who commits a mortal sin returns to a state of justification only by repenting, faith and confession to a priest.  Evangelicals would characterize that process as one of works, because the Catholic must refrain from certain works and do other works in order to remain justified.

This is where the terms begin to get tricky.  I think a more main difference is the premise of infutation and infusion.  We believe we are actually changed, whereas you believe we are the same but not get the benefits we would have gotten if we were different (ie: good, clean, pure)

Once you accept that sin is real, and changes you, pollutes your soul, then you understand that you can clean your soul.

We think of it this way…

You know those crystals that you can buy and hang in your window?  When the sun shines through them, they make rainbows?

Well, we see our souls like that crystal.  God is the light, that when allowed to shine through a pure crystal makes rainbows.

Over time, dust, fingerprints, grease, lint, etc.  will begin to cover that crystal.  This debris is sin.  Sin actually taints the soul.

If the soul becomes too dirty, the light can no longer shine through it.

Some sins are so foul, that it would be akin to dropping the whole crystal in a puddle of mud. 

Baptism, and later confession is like a bottle of windex.  The graces we receive from these sacrament remove the dirt, allowing God to shine through us once again. 

Venial sin, if left unremoved will eventually build up.  The sun will not shine through as efficiently as a clean crystal, but it can still get through.

Mortal sin is like the mud puddle.  It is so bad that it actually makes it impossible for the sun to get through.  It becomes useless.  If it never gets cleaned again, it pretty much means that the relationship with the sun is severed (what we call “losing the faith” or forfieting “salvation”.

I understand that you don’t agree with us, but I thought this would help you understand what we mean by grace, sin, confession and ongoing conversion. 

I’m sensing that you feel as if it doesn’t matter if the crystal is clean.  That actually, nothing you can do will ever get it clean.  But that because Jesus’ is clean, we reap the benefits, regardless of the state of our own soul….is that correct?  No need to clean it.  Jesus is clean enough for all of us?

Twelve Oaks writes-“Third the Catholic list of mortal sins is quite arbitrary and rather lengthy.  One list at a catholic website includes abortion, anger, adulterers, amending the words of the Holy Bible, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, (Eternal sin), carousing, cowards, defrauders, dissensions, disrespect towards parents, drunkenness, enmities, envy, factions, faithless, false witness (liars), fornicators, greed, Holy Communion received while in a state of mortal sin, idolatry, impurity, jealousy, licentiousness, love and practice falsehoods, male prostitution, murderers, Polluted, quarrelling, sodomites, sorcery, strife, thieves (steal/robbers).  [note: some are nouns other verbs; I didn’t correct the grammar]. 
That list amounts to a denial of justification by faith, because a person who commits any of these sins is no longer justified.”

Your last point is excellent. It also seems that once a person who commits such things would come under the warning of Hebrews 6:4-6.

That list amounts to a denial of justification by faith, because a person who commits any of these sins is no longer justified.

But this only appears that way if you think in terms of being perpetually dirty.  To us, all of those sins are like the mud puddles.  Justification to us is not a decree by Jesus, but a cleansing of the soul.  In that vain, the idea of mortal sin makes sense.

Both of us have sound logical arguments IF our premises are correct.  I run into this problem all the time with atheists and humanists.  How does one argue that it is reasonable to believe you can break Natural Law if one does not believe there IS Natural Law.  How can you argue that something is immoral, if the other party’s premise is that morality is not objective, but subjective?

Different premises, different arguments.  Both logical, but only given the premise.  If the premise of wrong, then all arguments, logical or otherwise, will also be wrong.

mk writes- “...I’m sensing that you feel as if it doesn’t matter if the crystal is clean.  That actually, nothing you can do will ever get it clean.  But that because Jesus’ is clean, we reap the benefits, regardless of the state of our own soul….is that correct?  No need to clean it.  Jesus is clean enough for all of us?”

Isn’t this what the blood of Christ does? I John 1:7.

How does the blood of Christ work in Catholic theology?

KR:

You cannot love the Lord and hate the church and vice versa.. Protestants hate the CC (they preach it every day) for the stuff it teaches. There is no individual hatred: In fact they want to save us!

The CC is the work of the Holy Spirit while other churches are not (even if miracles do happen there) because their teaching is fundamentally incorrect, not simply inconsistent with scripture but even against natural law, and will not save them. That is why outside the one church, there is no salvation. This has been the constant teaching from the Fathers of the Church.

What can you say to a person who does not think that abortion is not a grave sin! These are the teachings of Satan. Not the Holy Spirit.  Eventually, they come against God. That is why these teachers and their followers fall into the same pit. Good luck to you if you think like them.

Actually, Hebrews 4-6 is what I meant by the crystal becoming so dirty that there is no way for God to shine through.

We also talk about something called a seared conscience.  This means that a person’s soul has so much sin that they are no longer capable of telling right from wrong.  I’m sure you’ve met such people.

This is what allows people to be pro choice, or have premarital sex, or want gay marriage…without having a clue that these things are wrong.  They have lived in sin so long, they don’t even recognize it anymore.

There is very little hope for them.  But of course, there is ALWAYS hope.  However small.

MK, Here are some thoughts in regard to your statement, “Some sins are so foul, that it would be akin to dropping the whole crystal in a puddle of mud.”  Every sin is an affront to the holiness of God.  They are all like dropping the whole crystal into the mud.  I am having trouble just now thinking of a nice way to explain how offensive it is to essentially have a list of acceptable sins (venial) and unacceptable ones (mortal).  Catholics will argue that none of them are “acceptable.”  However, from God’s perspective all sins are a violation of His absolute holiness.
The better analogy is that God is the crystal.  Whenever we sin, we splatter mud on the crystal.  In fact, there is nothing in us at all but mud and filth.  All of our righteousness is as dirty rags.  Even so, by His grace He justifies us.  How foolish to think we can remain justified by doing certain things and refraining from others, as if any of us can even begin to keep the mortal sin list.  That list does nothing but condemn the person who tries even to keep it as a means of remaining justified.
MK, writes, “I’m sensing that you feel as if it doesn’t matter if the crystal is clean.  That actually, nothing you can do will ever get it clean.  But that because Jesus’ is clean, we reap the benefits, regardless of the state of our own soul….is that correct?  No need to clean it.  Jesus is clean enough for all of us?”  Actually, this statement more accurately reflects my understanding.  However, I must strongly add, that I do not agree with the part, “It doesn’t matter if the crystal [us] is clean.”  Jesus has made us positionally clean in Him.  However, it is important that we walk in the Spirit so that we do not fulfill the lust of the flesh.  We need to be controlled by the Holy Spirit each second of each day.  However, our justification does not depend at all on whether we walk in the Spirit or fail to do so.  It depends entirely on what Christ has done.  Thanks, MK.  I hope that provides some clarification.

However, even that justification comes by way of baptism, often without the requirement of faith at all, in the case of infants.

This is another one of those same word different meanings thingys.

Faith is a gift.  We both agree with that statement.

But we need to define gift. This gets back to what I was saying about your assent to the faith is a work also.  We do not believe that we have to do anything at all to be saved.  Not even agree.  The gift, through the sacrament of baptism, does not require ANYTHING on your part.  Nothing.

When we baptize adults, obviously for practical reasons, they need to give their permission, to accept the gift…it would be wrong to force “salvation” on them.  That’s not our prerogative.  But it could technically be done.  That’s what WE mean by a free gift.

But that is the Initial gift that Mr. Akins is referring to.  A true “gift”.

While priests do not come to Bible studies in our area, it seems like when priests are around for anything, people clam up and expect that only the priest has insight worth sharing.  It’s a Catholic “Cat got your tongue

Oh that one gave me a belly laugh.  The poor priest.  I follow him into the kitchen at break.  I sit at his table.  I question everything.  If I had a dime for everytime he told me not to get so deep…I’d be rich!

I promise you, this is not a quiet bible study.  I’ve almost come to fisticuffs a few times…both with the priest and with other students.

The largest argument, (KR, Twelve and Faithful….you’ll be so proud of me) was when he claimed that since we can’t even be sure who wrote the Gospels we have to be very careful not to take every word literally!  This was because someone read a passage saying those who don’t believe will be sent to hell!  He said that Jesus might not even have said this.

I think I got 4 inches taller and more than a little red in the face!  Later in the discussion someone asked how we could be sure something was true and I sarcastically said “Well don’t look to scripture…no tellin’ who wrote it”...

He got so mad he wouldn’t even look at me for the rest of the class.

It’s not usually so heated, but I can promise you that as De Niro told Ben Stiller….I’m watching him!  lol.

I often go to missions, or talks…just to do reconnaissance.  It’s kind of a running joke among my crowd…oh, oh, MK’s goin’ to hear Father Britto…sparks are gonna fly!

MK, If I understand you correctly, you are saying that faith is a gift bestowed at baptism, so Catholics don’t even require “faith” in order for a person to be baptized.  The baptized person will receive the gift of faith, upon baptism.

That practice probably explains why I have never had a Catholic mention the necessity of faith as a requirement for salvation.  Over the years I have specifically asked many Catholics what it takes to get to heaven, and not one has told me that faith is involved.  This includes a Catholic who studied to be a priest, who had a brother as a priest and went to mass every day. He told me that his salvation depended on keeping the commandments.  When I looked puzzled, he said, “You see, I don’t believe everybody is going to heaven.”  I answered, “Under your system, nobody is going to heaven.”  Then he asked me what I thought.  When I mentioned faith, he said, “You didn’t listen to me; I said you’ve gotta have faith [which he didn’t].  Then he said, “Faith without works is dead.”  Then he said he had to go, because his back was hurting.

One anecdote certainly does not prove or disprove anything, but I couldn’t help but think of this incident as I read these comments about baptism.  The problem is that many of these baptized adults have no faith at all.  The reality is that baptism does not bestow faith on anybody.  The Bible never makes that claim.  If faith is a gift, and many think it is, it doesn’t come through water baptism.

Terry,
How “Christian” of you,—no, your brand of Catholicism which now has informed everyone that Billy Graham is going to hell.  He has never preached hatred of the RCC —so why is he going to hell?

Seems your Christian maturity development has not evolved beyond what
the nuns told you in 2nd grade catechism.

I don’t want to monopolize the comment section, but I have an additional comment in regard to the list of mortal sins.  When the lawyer asked Jesus which of the commandments was the greatest commandment in the Law, Jesus responded, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.  This is the great and foremost commandment.  Then He said, “The second is like it, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

If these are the greatest commandments, why is the failure to fulfill them not listed among the list of mortal sins?

Finally, when the Jesus mentions the promise of the Holy Spirit, He says the Spirit will convince the world of sin, righteousness and judgment.  Then he explains, “Sin, because they do not believe in Me.”  If unbelief is the one sin mentioned in regard to the Holy Spirit’s role, it is especially troubling that many people are depending on water baptism to save them and give them faith, which they did not have when they were baptized.  The people trusting in baptism to give them faith do so entirely outside the biblical teaching, because that doctrine found only in the mind of the Magesterium apart from the pages of Scripture

mk writes-“The largest argument, (KR, Twelve and Faithful….you’ll be so proud of me) was when he claimed that since we can’t even be sure who wrote the Gospels we have to be very careful not to take every word literally!  This was because someone read a passage saying those who don’t believe will be sent to hell!  He said that Jesus might not even have said this.

I think I got 4 inches taller and more than a little red in the face!  Later in the discussion someone asked how we could be sure something was true and I sarcastically said “Well don’t look to scripture…no tellin’ who wrote it”...

He got so mad he wouldn’t even look at me for the rest of the class.

It’s not usually so heated, but I can promise you that as De Niro told Ben Stiller….I’m watching him!  lol.

I often go to missions, or talks…just to do reconnaissance.  It’s kind of a running joke among my crowd…oh, oh, MK’s goin’ to hear Father Britto…sparks are gonna fly!”
Great story..lol. If you have a chance to see this guy again have come over here and we can dicuss that to. Sounds like he has been reading the Jesus Seminar stuff

Faithful,

There are some major problems with this view. For one if is true that “Jesus was handing over HIS authority to Peter until He returned” then why don’t we see such a deference to Peter in Acts or the letters. For example, Peter is not asked to decide the issue in Acts 15 but James does. (Acts 15:19). Secondly, Peter never refers to himself as the supreme leader of the church or that all Christ authority was given to him alone. What Peter does though in Acts 2:14-38 is to be the first man to open the gates of the kingdom of God by the preaching of the Gospel by which a man is saved. Keep in mind that the RCC insists that all this has to be tied to Rome. Here is what the the Jesuit scholar Joseph Fitzmyer has stated,

For one thing we know that in the OT God changed the names of those who were going to play a pivotal role.  Abram to Abraham…Sarai to Sarah…Jacob to Israel.  All the key players.  Peter is the only apostle whose name He changes.  He has set him aside.  Marked him as special.  That’s one clue.

Next, we look at the whole Keys thing.  These are the exact words that are spoken in Isaiah. 

Isaiah 22 <B> I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station.

On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;

I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.

These are the SAME words that Jesus says to Peter.  Then he changes his name, and says that the church will be built on him.  He will be the rock on which the New Church will be built.

Some argue about the word Petra, but the original is in Aramaic, not Greek and it is clear that Jesus is referring to Peter.

He has handed the Authority to Peter, and he follows this up by promising that the gates of hell will not prevail against this Church, which He is founding and which Peter will lead.

This is only possible through the grace of God.  It is NOT Peter’s due.  Who knows why Jesus chose him and not another apostle.  So if Peter did not merit it, then he also has no right to flaunt it.  This isn’t an honor, it’s a duty. 

I haven’t studied acts yet, so I’m not as familiar with it as I am with the Gospels.  But I do recall Peter and Paul coming to words over how to treat the Jews/Gentiles.  Do you know what passage that is?

Also Scott Hahn has a really good essay on the papacy.  He was a former protestant minister and has a very good understanding of where both of our beliefs are coming from.  You can read it here:

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Faithful,

As to the Holy Spirit and Mary…

Yes, it is true that on a mystical level, a husband and wife become one.  But I do not gain my husbands musical ability and he does not gain my fondness for philosophy.  Neither would Mary take on the Holy Spirits divinity.  This is a mystical marriage, different from ordinary marriages.

She is married to Joseph and that is a valid marriage.

Mary is representing the Church.  She is bearing the Christ.  Just as after Jesus’ resurrection, we become His bride, and He the bridegroom, before His incarnation, Mary represents the Church.  She is the Bride, the Holy Spirit the Bridegroom. 

As to the pope always being infallible…NO.  He is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra…from the chair…in his “official capacity”.  As I"ve said before, it is really the Holy Spirit speaking. 

Think of it as a science fiction film.  Whenever the Pope sits in “The Chair”, he is overtaken by an entity…“The Holy Spirit” and this Holy Spirit speaks through him…as soon as the pope stands up, he becomes himself again.  That’s a crude illustration, to be sure, but it illustrates what we mean by infallibility. 

Also again, there have only been 2 infallible statements, that is statements made by the Holy Spirit, through the pope, from the chair, in the last 150 years…

Twelve,

I don’t want to monopolize the comment section,

haha…too late. I’ve already done that!

As for your question.  The apostles went out and baptized everyone. Did that not include children?  Where in the bible does it say that you had to be of a certain age in order to receive faith?

As for all those sins and the greatest commandment.

If one were to ask what that commandment means, what would you say?

How would you illustrate what it means to NOT love your neighbor.  Every one of those sins hurts the whole Church…they hurt ALL of humanity.  We are ONE body…what I do to one part of the body will affect the rest.

If I am abusing drugs, I am not loving myself.  How can I love my neighbor as my self, if I don’t love myself.

If I commit adulter, I am sinning against the sacrament of marriage. 

All of those sins cause harm to everyone.  Loving our neighbor means not sinning, because sinning harms our neighbor and is therefore, not love.

Also, breaking any commandment, is disrespecting God.  How can we “love” God if we refuse to obey Him?  Isn’t obedience a sign of love?

Faithful,

I am having trouble just now thinking of a nice way to explain how offensive it is to essentially have a list of acceptable sins (venial) and unacceptable ones (mortal).  Catholics will argue that none of them are “acceptable.”

Oh goodness, I never meant to imply that there were acceptable sins.  Simply asking God directly for forgiveness is usually enough.  But to us, some sins actually make our end of the covenant null and void.  These require extraordinary measures…ie: confession.

Remember, we believe we receive Grace every time we receive a sacrament.  So frequent confession is encouraged, but not necessary.

You also asked what the bread and wine do for us…

I’m awfully tired right now, but the short answer is that it nourishes us.  Jesus told us it is real food, and real drink. 

The longer answer involves Theology of the Body, intimacy, marital union, oneness, Bride and Groom, Church and Jesus…

Can I get into it more tomorrow?

mk writes-”..Twelve,

I don’t want to monopolize the comment section,

haha…too late. I’ve already done that!

As for your question.  The apostles went out and baptized everyone. Did that not include children?  Where in the bible does it say that you had to be of a certain age in order to receive faith?”

Does it not require to have understanding and knowledge to have faith?
Yes. That’s why there is such a problem with infant baptisms.

To all,

Today was so pleasant.  We seem to gotten over the hurdles of throwing doctrine back and forth and really taken the time to listen and learn.  I really love learning about justification, infutation, righteousness…from your guys point of view. 

And I didn’t need any tums.  Although between answering 200 questions, reading encyclicals, essays, the catechism, articles…I could sure use a tylenol!

I hope you all felt the same.

Til tomorrow…?

Faithful,

Does it not require to have understanding and knowledge to have faith?
Yes. That’s why there is such a problem with infant baptisms.

but where does it require you to have understanding and knowledge to get faith.  If faith is a gift, why do you need to “understand” it?  To live it, yes, you’ll need wisdom.  But to “Get” it?  Does a baby need to understand the gifts he gets at his birthday?  Does he need to say yes thank you, I’d like that mobile or rattle?  A gift is given, regardless of whether the person “understands”.  Isn’t it?

KR:

Look at it this way. The best and the brightest of Protestants and the Anglicans have been coming into the CC for many, many years. Now why do they make that step, many giving up their livelihood as pastors and teachers and what not, unless they became aware of the insecurity of their salvation? If that was not the case, they would not have left their denominations and beliefs.

God is not a respecter of persons whether it is Billy Graham (and I like him a lot and pray that, like others, he too come into the CC) or any other famous person. We do not go into the Kingdom because of our claim to know the Bible more than the teaching of the CC. Hogwash! Those who stay out of the CC because of their own beliefs are on their own. Judgement is not about what you believed in disobedience but about what you ought to have believed. That is why protestant beliefs are chaotic, each believing what he wants!

You have to stop looking at people, a protestant madness originating from their fathers of the church like Luther, Calvin and Zwingli and the rest down, and look at the teachings.

mk writes-“ Faithful,
Does it not require to have understanding and knowledge to have faith?
Yes. That’s why there is such a problem with infant baptisms.
but where does it require you to have understanding and knowledge to get faith.  If faith is a gift, why do you need to “understand” it?  To live it, yes, you’ll need wisdom.  But to “Get” it?  Does a baby need to understand the gifts he gets at his birthday?  Does he need to say yes thank you, I’d like that mobile or rattle?  A gift is given, regardless of whether the person “understands”.  Isn’t it?”

Faith is a gift in the sense that we cannot earn it. The gift refers back to what he wrote in verses 4-7 in Ephesians 2.  It is necessary to have knowledge and understanding before you can receive this gift.
This kind of gift would not apply to infants since it is required to understand it and acknowledge it. In fact it would not apply to those who do not accept it either.

Dear Faithful:

Knowledge and understanding come as a result of faith, not the other way round. Because of Abraham’s faith knowledge and understanding was given. No amount of knowledge can give faith because faith can be rejected and so knowledge does not help.

Terry writes-“Dear Faithful:

Knowledge and understanding come as a result of faith, not the other way round. Because of Abraham’s faith knowledge and understanding was given. No amount of knowledge can give faith because faith can be rejected and so knowledge does not help.”
Huh?? How can someone believe unless they have knowledge and understanding? Romans 10:14-17
  14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!”

16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?”

17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Dear Faithful:

For the simple reason that if one has no faith no amount of listening (knowledge) will bring him to believe.

Terry writes “Dear Faithful:

For the simple reason that if one has no faith no amount of listening (knowledge) will bring him to believe.”

Do you think though that knowledge is essential to salvation?

Terry writes, “For the simple reason that if one has no faith no amount of listening (knowledge) will bring him to believe.”  Terry, “faith” and “believe” are the same word.  I’m not sure what you are trying to say, but it isn’t correct.  Faith does not bring someone to believe; faith is believing.  Also, listening is not knowledge.

Dear Faithful:

Listening (or by reading) is the means of gaining knowledge and because of faith one believes. This has to be explained to you?

MK, people can disagree.  Catholics are trained in childhood that Peter was conferred as the “head” by which the church would be built —or more to the point, the ROCK.  Others believe is was not Peter but moreover THAT Truth which the Holy Spirit revealed —that Jesus is the “Messiah, the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”  It is this truth which is the foundation by which the church would be built.  The Apostles never deferred any special designation to Peter after Jesus ascended.  It was only men who formulated this belief.  When you are trained in Catechism to believe such information, it is only natural that you carry over such belief into adulthood until you test that teaching.

Terry writes “Dear Faithful:

Listening (or by reading) is the means of gaining knowledge and because of faith one believes. This has to be explained to you?”

Do you think the way faith-belief is used in Scripture requires knowledge? Do you think the Lord Jesus came to bring a certain kind of knowledge to mankind?

Terry, yes Jesus answered your question of why he came into this world when standing before Pilate.
“I came into the world to testify to the truth.”  The truth being not a thing —but a person.  It is this
knowledge that a believer has—knowledge of TRUTH—the person of Christ Jesus.  From this TRUTH
a man is set free—indeed.

Following, is just a reflection - not in scriptures, nothing to say it ever happened. Just a small reflection on the Greatest who ever lived, who stated nothing is impossible with God - and loved us more than we can imagine.  God Bless.

“How often do we wonder what God’s love is? What it should feel like? What could it mean when we hear that God loves each of us more than we can ever imagine?

Reflect upon Our Lord immediately after His Scourging. Left unattended for a few scant seconds or minutes sitting disoriented at the base of the pillar after being beaten so severely for a long period. Imagine if you will that each of us is allowed to witness this spiritually in horror and feel the sadness. It’s all we can think about to bow down on our knees in homage before Him, there are no words. Our heads face down on the ground in front of Him, with our arms also extended on the ground at His Feet.
He is exhausted, battered, beaten, bleeding, naked, probably can’t even see straight because of The Blood Loss now at His Feet. Unimaginable Pain, Thirst and Loneliness. While kneeling in front of Him in homage, I try to sneak a peek up to see how He is doing.

Suddenly, He slowly lifts up His Shaking Head, recognizes me, and knows all the terrible ugliness of horrible mortal and venial sins on my soul. My head immediately bolts back to the ground in terrible shame and fear.
In His terrible agony, His eyes become rejuvenated and He desperately tries to reach out to Bless me. His goal only to touch my head gently, to welcome and thank me for simply being there, for my small gesture.

In spite of the terrible pain He has suffered and will continue to suffer, nothing is more important to Him in this moment than to reach out with love. To one of His lost sheep that hasn’t even been born yet.

He does not make it far when He is roughly pulled up and led away. He turns back as He is being roughly escorted away and looks at me. His look is one of being completely horrified and filled with Sorrow that He has to leave. The physical torture that will occur over and over to Him in the next few hours seems of little concern compared to His Sorrow and Anxiety for having to leave one soul unattended at that moment.

No matter His Pain, He is always ready to reach out to us to our dying breath, and His.”

Faithful,

Faith is a gift in the sense that we cannot earn it. The gift refers back to what he wrote in verses 4-7 in Ephesians 2.  It is necessary to have knowledge and understanding before you can receive this gift.
This kind of gift would not apply to infants since it is required to understand it and acknowledge it. In fact it would not apply to those who do not accept it either.

Firsts where does it say this in scripture, and second then why did the apostles baptize infants and children?

I see nothing in Ephesians to back this up…

Faithful,

“Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16).

But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching and that “She was baptized, with her household” (Acts 16:15). The Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that night along with his household. We are told that “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33). And in his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).

Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children; they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again, they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control. Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

I still hold that if you have to assent, it is NOT a free gift.  It’s conditional.  Which is fine, but then say so. 

Salvation is conditional.  It is not a free gift.  It requires the person’s assent.

KR,

Others believe is was not Peter but moreover THAT Truth which the Holy Spirit revealed —that Jesus is the “Messiah, the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”  It is this truth which is the foundation by which the church would be built.

It would not be possible for Jesus to have been referring to anyone else but Peter.  Read the Scott Hahn essay to find out why…

On “Faith”.

I think this is another one of those “The word has 2 meanings” things.

Yes, Faith can and does mean to believe.  But for Catholics it can also be an objective thing.  Like the “Truth” that KR refers to.

Truth can be a list of facts or statements, but it is also a “who”.  When I follow Truth I mean I am following a person, when I follow truth I mean I am following an idea.

When we (catholics) speak of Faith as a theological virtue we mean the actual “thing”, objectively.  When we speak of faith as believing, we mean subjectively, as something that we DO.

The gift of faith we receive at baptism is an example of the first.  It is an objective thing…the ability to believe.  The grace needed to believe.  But we also speak of faith as meaning “I believe”, I assent…

Two different ways of using the same word.

This is why we can baptize infants, but why it takes assent to LIVE out the faith.

It’s the same with justify.  You mean that Jesus has given you the thumbs up…we mean that Jesus has changed us and that we are inherently justified. 

Our justification takes place within, yours takes place outside.

Our Faith takes place withing…it happens TO us. It happens in our soul.

Yours takes place in the brain/mind.

Living the Faith takes assent.  Getting the faith takes nothing at all.  We don’t have to do anything to GET the Faith.  All of our work begins after the gift is given.  Hence the term “Free Gift”.  But once we ‘GET” it, we must work to keep it.  This is where your notion that we use works to gain justification comes from.

Which is not true.  We believe we are freely justified at baptism, but that after the gift has been given and received “FREELY”, we are now obligated to make the faith LIVE.  This requires works.  Not works to GET the gift, works to keep it.

for instance…

If the gift were a pet…say a rabbit.  We get the gift freely.  No strings attached.  But AFTER we receive the rabbit, we are now responsible for keeping it alive.  If we neglect it, don’t feed it, don’t give it water, don’t love it….it will die.  The gift will not be taken back…but it will not live either.

We are given faith freely.  We must take care of it after.  Faith, and works.

KR:

It is as a result of Peter’s confession that he was made the head, the rock, upon which Jesus built the church though others also made the same confession. The authority to bind and loose was given first to Peter specifically and separately and then to others later as a group. Of course, by making Peter the head, Jesus loses nothing. He is still the Head of the Church. God loses nothing of what he gives.

All visible organisations must have a visible head with authority to mete out sanctions. Look what happened to Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5: Cf. The punishment of Korah, Dathan and Abiram in the OT (Num: 16) for coming against the authority of Moses). Because people will not obey (the reason for hell) and bring chaos, justice must also be a function of the church. That is why the final authority is the one church with one head.

Luther and calvin could never come to a final agreement ( especially on the Eucharist) although trying many times and so remained apart dividing within itself to the present day. The reason why the CC has remained as the one church is because it is the true church. Truth is indivisible. Other churches go into oblivion, fracturing and dividing, because they are not true churches.

Just because a person says that Jesus is Lord, does not mean that he is saved. Hell is full of all sorts of christians. Jesus said so. Although the CC has never declared anybody to be in hell but has declared those in heaven by canonisation, it has never canonised a single protestant as a saint. It is interesting to note that in the CC, the canonisation process is begun mostly as a result of public petition and therefore anyone can propose: Seriously, have you ever heard of a proposal for Luther or Calvin to be declared a saint in heaven?

It is my personal opinion that no one who actively and vigorously oppose the CC for its teaching authority (unless someday convert and come into the CC - see my earlier entry) including those in the CC, ever go to heaven! Heaven is one church in perfect harmony and union.

God is all merciful but not to the people who oppose the teachings of the Holy Spirit.

.

MK, The word “faith” does not mean “having the ability to believe.”  One who believes has faith, and one who does not believe does not have faith.  A person who merely “has the ability to believe” but does not actually believe, is not justified.

Twelve,

Perhaps it would be better if I said that your were given the singular “grace” to believe.

And not everyone DOES have the ability to believe.  Not unless they receive that grace.  Amazing Grace, no?

Without that grace, none of us could believe.  That’s the GIFT of which we speak.

This is a quiz I found on a Catholic Website.  It’s a pretty good way to illustrate the differences between our different ways of understanding Faith, Justification and righteousness….pretty interesting.

1. (a) God gives a sinner right standing with himself by mercifully accounting him innocent or virtuous.

(b) By the power of the Holy Spirit living in us, we can satisfy the claims of the Ten Commandments.

http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Church History/justification.html

And of course, as always, I urge you to read the entire article.

Twelve,

A person who merely “has the ability to believe” but does not actually believe, is not justified.

Bingo!  This is what we mean when we say you can LOSE the gift.  If you have been given the GRACE/FAITH but choose not to use it, you lose it.  You don’t actually lose the grace, but you lose the benefits that go with it. ie: entrance into the family/heaven.

The prodigal son is a perfect example.  He walked away from the “gift”.  He was part of the family, walked away from the family (the family didn’t walk away from him…and the family stayed intact)and came back to the family.  But while he was away he reaped NO benefits of the family.

MK writes, “We believe we are freely justified at baptism, but that after the gift has been given and received “FREELY”, we are now obligated to make the faith LIVE.  This requires works.  Not works to GET the gift, works to keep it.” 

MK, this point is a major distinction between Catholic belief and Evangelicalism.

Consider two points:
1.  The Bible does not distinguish between “initial justification” and some later justification.  There is one justification.  By His offering Jesus has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. (Heb 10:14)  “And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” (Heb 10:17). 
2.  Because we are justified by His grace, and because we are perfected for all time, we do not “work to keep it.”  Jesus has done all of the work.  The only “work” we can do is to “believe.” (John 6:29)
3.    He is remembering our sins “no more.” God isn’t sitting in heaven with His list of mortal sins making check marks on a giant spreadsheet to determine whether someone is justified or not.  Everyone who has put their faith in Jesus is justified.

twelve,

By His offering Jesus has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. (Heb 10:14)

First, you don’t believe that He DID perfect us.  Ever.  You believe that He is perfect and has therefore declared that even tho imperfect, we can still have the benefits as if we WERE perfect.

WE are the ones who believes He MADE us perfect.  And He does. 

  “And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” (Heb 10:17). 

How is this possible if what you say is true.  How can God not remember?  The sin is still there.  The imperfection is still there.  According to you, nothing has really changed.  How can He erase the memory, if He doesn’t erase the stain?

From my point of view, it seems more like YOU are giving the gift of your Faith to God and not like He is giving the gift of Faith to you.

and tell me this Twelve,

what is your “sanctification”?  When you talk of being sanctified, what do you mean?

MK writes “Bingo!  This is what we mean when we say you can LOSE the gift.”

MK, Jesus said “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become a well of water springing up to eternal life.  A believer will never thirst again. He has passed from death to life and shall never come under condemnation.  MK, we don’t lose the gift.

I think it also might help to understand that you NEVER lose the gift, only the benefits.  I think you call the benefits being saved, while we call the “gift” being saved…

Scott Hahn is OPINION —not Scripture.  Scott Hahn is a man, not God.
His opinion is no more valid than the pope, nor yours or anyone else.

Sanctify means “to set apart.”  In Heb 10:10 God is the one who has set us apart just as He set apart Israel in the OT (Ex 31:13).  We have been set apart “through the offering of Jesus.”  (Heb 10:10)

KR,

I never claimed Scott was inspired writing.  I only point to him because a. He has valid points…just like the pope.  Just like Luther.  Who was a man.

and

b. He understands the differences between protestants and catholics better than either a catholic or a protestant because he was both.

My we’re up early and in a fighting mood…. ;)

MK, as long as we are considering some of these theological words, let’s look at propitiation, ” being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.” (Rom 3:24-25)  That word refers to the turning away of God’s wrath.  When Jesus died on the cross, paying the penalty for our sins, God’s wrath was turned away on account of the blood that was shed.  Those who have put their faith in Jesus Christ are justified, and God has turned away his wrath with regard to their sins.  The number of our sins for which Jesus died, is the same number of sins for which God has turned away His wrath: all of our sins.  To say that we could later sin and again come under the wrath of God is to say either that Jesus did not die for all of our sins or else that He was not truly the propitiation for out sins.

KR,

I just checked and God does not have a question and answer blog.

You know first you tell me not to quote scripture so much, then you tell me that when I use a different source it’s not valid because it’s not scripture.  Are you always this ornery or did you just not have your coffee yet.

I don’t usually get ornery til around 2:00 in the afternoon…lol

MK, just accept that Catholics and Protestants have varying views of Scripture.
The problem is that Satan loves all these divisions among the brethern.
It would be ideal if we could come together on matters of common acceptance
—eg the cross, the blood, the virgin birth, the inerrancy of the Word and the
resurrection.  The problem is that Catholics always want to have it THEIR way
in terms of every iota of detail —and that the pope is the final authority over
what is or is not true.  In the end, what does the pope matter?  I have no relevancy
with the pope.  For in the end we shall stand before Christ—personally.  Only
you and him.  He will not ask you if you were Catholic or Protestant.

Twelve,

Gonna take a shower then I’ll address that question.

But let me just say, that He did die for all of our sins, past future and present.  This doesn’t mean we get the benefits of that death automatically.  We get the benefit of getting the benefits through our baptism.  We get the benefits themselves through our cooperation in using them.

Not using the benefits in no way takes away from them being there.  You can’t undo the crucifixion. 

This is gonna take us on a new tangent, but it’s bound to come up sooner or later.

We believe…*deep breath*...that there are two parts to the forgiveness of our sins.

There is the spiritual forgiveness which allows us the right to live forever and then there is the the temporal punishment.

When we sin, we loose evil in the world.  Evil begets evil.  Remember how I said that our sins affect the whole body?  The reason that there is sickness and pain and suffering and sorrow in our world is that there is sin.

So while Jesus death and resurrection took away the pain of DEATH, it did not take away the effect of sin in other ways.  If you doubt this, then explain why we no longer die (spiritually) but we do still suffer, and affect of sin.

In order to balance the scales, negate the evil loosed by our sins, we must “pay”.  Either through sacrifice or penance.  This is what is meant when Paul(?) says that we must “SHARE” in the sufferings of Christ. 

What was bought for us through Christ’s death was not a free ride to sin, but the gift of eternal life.  We must still carry our own crosses…

MK writes, “think it also might help to understand that you NEVER lose the gift, only the benefits.  I think you call the benefits being saved, while we call the “gift” being saved…”  In regard to being justified by God and having eternal life, we can never lose the gift or the benefits.

KR,

The problem is that Catholics always want to have it THEIR way
in terms of every iota of detail —and that the pope is the final authority over
what is or is not true

No, the problem is that Catholics believe in TRUTH.  So do Protestants.  I’m sure if you asked every protestant here, if they could be shown, if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that our views are correct, each and every one of them would change their minds.  I would do the same.

What we are doing, is dialoguing and hoping to come to a better understanding of what we believe and why, and hoping to gain some new insights.

The protestants can be wrong.  The Catholics can be wrong.  Both can be wrong.

What they cannot be, is both right.

Since all of us here seek the Truth, the whole Truth and NOTHING BUT the Truth, we would be horrified to find that we were following lies, we are attempting to discern, if possible, just what those truths are.

The first step of course, is to clarify what we already believe.

As Jack Nicholson so famously asked “Can you handle the Truth?”

MK, but God does have a Q&A blog:  Catholic Radio’s—Catholic Answers LIVE.
They get rid of you if you do not agree with Jimmy, Patrick, Tim or Fr. Serpa.
You MUST agree or “well, it’s time for a commercial break.”  How convenient and
an easy out.  They always point you to some link or some RC apologist.
The reason this blog is so popular now on this topic is because our priests are
so poorly equipped to even broach these topics.  You, I, Faithful, Cradle and 12
Oaks are more schooled as the laity than are our parish clergy.

KR,

BTW, yes Satan does love all these divisions…but you know what He would love better?  If we just went about our business, believing non TRUTHS.

You are the one harping on challenging things.  Should I only challenge Catholic teaching?  Do Protestants get a pass?  Which is it?  Accept everything without question, or question everything?

KR,

MK, but God does have a Q&A blog:

WOW!!  I’ve been listening to Relevant Radio for years and I have NEVER heard God on as a guest.  Do you know the next time he’ll be on?  I’ll be sure to tune in.

And He hung up on you?  Snikeys!

Last time I checked, Stephen Ray and Fr. Serpa were NOT God….

MK, when you return, I would like to learn more about this phrase, “In order to balance the scales, negate the evil loosed by our sins, we must “pay”.  Which scales need to be balanced, and what is the basis for this concept? Are you suggesting that “sharing in the sufferings of Christ” is the basis for having to “balance the scales and negate the evil loosed by our sins?”

Twelve,

In regard to being justified by God and having eternal life, we can never lose the gift or the benefits.

Tell that to Judas. 

This is your way of seeing it, and you have the right to see it that way.  But the Truth is objective and it doesn’t matter how you see it.  It only matters how it “is”. 

You can quote scriptures to back up your belief, I can quote them to back up mine.  But only one belief can be the Truth.

Which is why I don’t decide for myself.  I trust the Church on matters like this.  They have studied the scriptures for 2,000 years.  I’m only 50. 

The fact that we read scriptures differently only goes to show that it’s dangerous to draw your own conclusions.  Was Luther not merely a man?  Was Calvin the same? 

On whose authority, other than their own, did they decide the that Church was wrong.  At what point did God give the keys to Luther?  At what point did He say, don’t listen to the church I instituted, rather listen to THIS GUY!—->

You claim to base your beliefs on scripture not man, but accuse us of doing the opposite.

I can show, through scripture, that Jesus gave His authority to Peter and the Church.  Where in scripture did Jesus give authority to Luther or Calvin?  Where does He say “Follow Peter, until Luther comes along”.

You base your beliefs just as much on men as we do.  Only we can show, through scripture that our “men” were anointed by God.

mk writes “....I still hold that if you have to assent, it is NOT a free gift.  It’s conditional.  Which is fine, but then say so. 

Salvation is conditional.  It is not a free gift.  It requires the person’s assent.”
Those passages you quote in support of infant baptism is based on speculations that these households contained infants and were baptized.
We do know from the NT that belief-knowledge-understanding are the conditions that must be met if a person is to be bpatized.

As for the gift part of salvation as expressed in Eph 2:8 it must be free by defintion or its not a gift. A gift is not something you earn. You are right that salvation is conditional. One condition is that no man can come to Christ unless the Father draws-compells him.

Mk writes-“…You can quote scriptures to back up your belief, I can quote them to back up mine.  But only one belief can be the Truth.
Which is why I don’t decide for myself.  I trust the Church on matters like this.  They have studied the scriptures for 2,000 years.  I’m only 50…”

This really does gain you anything. All you have done is to add another step in the process. When you put your trust in your church you are still trusting in fallible men. The RCC’ interpretation of Scripture for the past 2000 years has not been consistent throughout time. Just look at how the early fathers interpreted Scripture and compare it with a later date.
If you want to know the truth then stick with Scripture. Do what I Thess 5:21 commands and what we see the Bereans did in Acts 17:11.  Hold church teaching accountable to the Scripture and don’t be satisfied with interpretations that don’t fit the text. What the RCC is guilty of is taking its doctrines and looking for verses and passages that they think support the doctrine instead of starting with Scripture and letting Scripture form the doctrine.

MK, I agree with Faithful’s points.  To that I would add a couple of comments.

You have decided for yourself: You have decided to let someone else make these decisions for you.  You are also accountable for that decision. 

You only have a fallible interpretation that the Catholic Church is correct.  Second, you only have a fallible interpretation that you even understand what the Catholic Church is saying.  Therefore, the fallibility argument is not meaningful.

We don’t use that kind of language with any other area of knowledge.  We don’t say that a person is somehow hampered from understanding chemistry because the chemistry professor or the student have fallible interpretations of chemistry.  Further, at some point we expect that the student will know enough to be able to understand chemistry and teach others without need of the professor to continue interpreting it.

The Bible is the revelation of God, made by God Himself.  If it is His revelation to us, it is absurd to say that we cannot understand it without further disclosure by a special group.

Faithful, you have the patience of a truly blessed man (or woman?).

Tweleve Oaks, you are on point also.
For centuries, the Word was viewed as the “exclusive” domain of the RCC.  And while we acknowledge and express gratitude to those monks and clerics who continued to protect and write and produce copies of the Bible, it was they, too, which became over-protective of their own domain to the point of not wanting the Bible presented into the hands of the peasantry for fear of mis-interpretation.  Even in the RCC to modern times, RC’s were never encouraged to read the Word for fear of mis-interpretation.  Just allow the priests to tell the people what is being said.  Well, we have found the emperor has no clothes because so many priests don’t even understand the Word.  Thank God for Guttenbery and his press for finally getting the WORD published and into the hands of God’s people to actually know what the Lord has to say.

</i>We do know from the NT that belief-knowledge-understanding are the conditions that must be met if a person is to be bpatized.</i>

And we don’t know from scripture that they didn’t.  But reason dictates that the odds of the apostles ONLY stumbling upon households that did not contain children are astronomical.  It is MORE reasonable to assume, given the value of children, that some or all contained them.
 

No where in the entire scripture does it state that children cannont or should not or were not baptized.

I would think that something this important, this distinction that you make, would have been made clear if it were true.

The Bible is the revelation of God, made by God Himself.

And part of that revelation is that God instituted a Church.  And gave the authority of that Church to Peter.  You cannot ignore inconvenient passages.  This is what he said.  As Horton says, He said what he meant and he meant what he said.

Upon YOU I will build MY church.  What you bind shall be bound.  Here are the keys.  Look to Isaiah to understand what the keys mean.

His words.  Not mine.  Not the popes.

His.

I put my faith in God.  God entrusted His church to us.  He gave us a leader.  Can I understand much of scripture on my own.  Sure.  But as this blog proves, I cannot understand it all.  I did not live in biblical times, I have never been a Jew, or an Egyptian or a Roman.

AS for there is no other place where words are used differently…there most certainly is!

We don’t say that a person is somehow hampered from understanding chemistry because the chemistry professor or the student have fallible interpretations of chemistry

If I am sick, I can get a medical book or I can go to a Doctor.  Which would you do?  The book might be right on every point, but the Doctor understands the points.  I’m going to trust the doctor.  That degree on his wall, tells me that he has been given the authority to treat me.  He has been “declared” qualified.  I on the other hand have NO qualifications other than the ability to read.  God gave the authority to Peter, just as a university gave the authority to the Doctor.

Look at movies.  What if I told you that the last movie I saw was “Good”.  You would probably assume I meant it was enjoyable, or well made or worth the price of admission.  But what if what I meant was that it was inherently “GOOD”?  That it was a GOOD.  That it could be labeled as a GOOD THING morally speaking?

.All you have done is to add another step in the process.

I did not add that step.  God did.  Big difference.

If you look at the process of discerning doctrine in the early church, you will indeed find discrepancies.  But if you look to the doctrines themselves, you will find that they have remained the same from the minute they were declared until today.

The Truth was always there, but discerning doesn’t just come from willing it.  It takes discussions, prayer, reflection, argument….only then does it become an infallible teaching.  Thank God for that, because if doctrine were made at the drop of a hat I’d become a Muslim!

Thank God for Guttenbery and his press for finally getting the WORD published and into the hands of God’s people to actually know what the Lord has to say.

And if the printing press had been invented earlier, who exactly could have read what was printed?????

twelve,

MK, when you return, I would like to learn more about this phrase, “In order to balance the scales, negate the evil loosed by our sins, we must “pay”.  Which scales need to be balanced, and what is the basis for this concept? Are you suggesting that “sharing in the sufferings of Christ” is the basis for having to “balance the scales and negate the evil loosed by our sins?”

First, will you answer me a couple of questions…

1.  Why do we suffer/Why does suffering still exist?

2.  What is the wages of sin?  What ultimate price were we required to pay?

3.  When you say that Jesus died to take our punishment for sin, what do you mean?  What punishment?

BTW,

NO ONE, not one of you, has answered my other question.  You say that I rely on the interpretation of men for my understanding of scripture.

Which of you can say that you have never used another man’s words to help you understand scripture?

Are you guys actually claiming that you came up with faith alone, sola scriptura, once saved always saved completely on your own without any outside input, just by reading the scriptures yourself?

Please answer.

Another example of words being used to mean different things…

Just ask 10 people when Life begins. 

Or what Natural Law is.

Or what a “right” is.

Or what freedom is.

KR1000 writes “Faithful, you have the patience of a truly blessed man (or woman?).”
Lol… I’m a man. I wish this were always true. I do commend those here such as mk, Terry and yourself who have deep convictions about these things. It makes these discussions so rich.

MK, You have asked several questions. Since we can’t discuss them all at once, which one would you like to discuss first?

Mk writes-“ BTW,
NO ONE, not one of you, has answered my other question.  You say that I rely on the interpretation of men for my understanding of scripture.

Which of you can say that you have never used another man’s words to help you understand scripture?

Are you guys actually claiming that you came up with faith alone, sola scriptura, once saved always saved completely on your own without any outside input, just by reading the scriptures yourself?
Please answer.”

We all by nature are forced to interpret what we hear and read. (in fact you could say that almost all that we believe is based on some kind of authority)  Good teachers can help us to understand. That’s why one of the gifts Christ gave the church was pastor-teachers who are to equip the saints for the building up of the body of Christ. See Eph 4:11-14.  Eph 4:14-16 tells us the aim of what our equipping is to result in:
14As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
15but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
16from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

Faith alone was taught by the apostles. Paul himself deals with the issue directly while James deals with self deception about this.

KR,

haha…“Faithful, you have the patience of a truly blessed man (or woman?).”

As long as we don’t call her blessed for generations, we’ll be okay.

The same goes for you KR.  Straddling both sides must be kind of hard.  I hope you know my comments are in jest!  I’m just “playin’” with ya!

And yes, these conversations are wonderful!

Faith alone was taught by the apostles. Paul himself deals with the issue directly while James deals with self deception about this.

No, this was taught by Luther.  The idea never entered anybody’s mind until he spoke it.  And he spoke it because he was depressed at the notion that no matter what he did, he never “Felt” good enough.  This came from not understanding the real teaching of the church, and not from any new revelation or insight.

You are putting as much faith in a man, Luther, as I am in my pope.  Same extra step if you will.

Same scripture passage.  Two different interpretations.  My man was assigned by God, your man was assigned by himself.

But BOTH of us are relying on another man’s interpretation of what was actually written in the scriptures.

If you could say honestly, that you came up with faith alone completely by yourself, it would be different.  But you didn’t.  You heard it first, from another source, and just as KR accused the church of doing, Luther came up with an idea, NOT inspired by God, and then searched scripture to back up his idea.  Not the other way around.  If James backs him up, then why dump James?

The Catholic church has NEVER dumped a book because it didn’t fit their “ideas”.  No did they change or add words.  Nor did they want to.  Because there was no need.  There interpretation was based on what was already there.  Luthers wasn’t.

Paul used the books that protestants have dumped from the established “bible”...if they were not truly inspired then why did Paul believe that they were?

Also, if you know them by their fruits, then explain why protestanism has resulted in female ministers (priests), divorce, abortion, contraception, adultery committed by remarriage, gay marriage, etc.

mk writes “Faith alone was taught by the apostles. Paul himself deals with the issue directly while James deals with self deception about this.
No, this was taught by Luther.  The idea never entered anybody’s mind until he spoke it.  And he spoke it because he was depressed at the notion that no matter what he did, he never “Felt” good enough.  This came from not understanding the real teaching of the church, and not from any new revelation or insight.”
Not so. This is what the Lord Jesus taught and His apostles. Just read Paul’s letters.  The problem is that after the apostles left the scene false teachings started to creep into the church. The church has always had to contend with false teachers and teachings from within and without.
Do you know why St Luther stood against the RCC at the time?

Mk—do you think St Luther was right in standing against the RCC? Here is a short paragraph that sums up what Luther was against.

“Martin Luther was shocked by the corruption of the clergy on a trip to Rome in 1510. Sixtus IV (1471–1484) was the first Pope to impose a license on brothels and a special tax on priests who kept a mistress. He also established the practice of selling indulgences to be applied to the dead, thereby establishing a virtually infinite source of revenue.[4] Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) was one of the most controversial of the Renaissance Popes. He fathered seven children, including Lucrezia and Cesare Borgia, by at least two mistresses.[5] Fourteen years after his death, the corruption of the papacy that Pope Alexander VI exemplified – particularly the sale of indulgences – prompted Luther to nail a summary of his grievances on the door of a church at Wittenberg in Germany and launch the Protestant Reformation.” Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Is this correct?

While it is quite true that there was corruption in the Church, and rightfully pointed out, the real issue here is not the fallibility of men, which we know to be true. The issue here is whether or not it is reasonable to accept the gap in church history from the apostles to Martin Luther. It is impossible for Paul to have believed in the Bible alone, since many of the books weren’t yet written, and since his testimony is accepted in biblical canon, it is free from theological error, but how did he learn of the correct theology? The answer is oral tradition, of course, but do you think that Paul is damned for not believing in the Bible alone?

MK,  we are not denying or prohibiting the use of outside sources.  However, we are saying that no outside sources should be given the status of infallibility.  In addition, if we see that an outside source teaches something that contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture, we reject that teaching.

To: 12 Oaks: Kt: Faithful

“The Bible is the revelation of God, made by God Himself. If it is His revelation to us, it is absurd to say that we cannot understand it without further disclosure by a special group.”

What a truly absurd thing to say! This is the preposterous nonsense that makes a person protestant!!

The Muslims, Unitarians, Jews, Hindus all read the Bible and quote it quite eruditely. So why do they get it wrong? According to you, they too should get it right.

It is a good thing that the catholic laity are discouraged from reading the Bible without proper guidance lest they become like the protestants, believing everything except the proper interpretation, and living in a hell hole of changing opinions to their damnation. Paul talked about protestants even then, saying that they are “Always learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.”

I have never denied that the church (small “C”) was corrupt at that time.  Never.  What I say is that Luther, aside from his real issues with the men of the church, also had issues with the Theology and doctrine of the church.

Are you saying that you can fix wrong behavior by replacing it with wrong behavior?

What happened in the church at that time did not affect church teaching.  Nor did it come from bad doctrine.  It came from bad implementation of sound doctrine, perpetrated by bad man.  Luther was right in speaking out.  He was wrong to split the church.

John, Paul had the Old Testament documents.  There is every reason to believe that he viewed those documents as the authoritative Word of God and did not view extra-biblical teachings as equally authoritative.  Second, he learned much of his theology from teachers who taught the Word of God.  Those rabbis who taught tradition that conflicted with Scripture were rebuked by Jesus.  He never affirmed tradition above Scripture, but instead said, “It is written….”  Finally, in regard to many of the things Paul taught, he tells us that he received them from God, because he was an Apostle.  Finally, the real issue is not whether there is a gap, but whether the Scriptures teach the doctrine.

If Paul didn’t view extra-biblical (read: OT) teachings as authoritative, then why does he insist that works of Mosaic law don’t earn salvation in Romans?

MK, —there is an expectation of acceptance by faith regarding the inerrancy of Scripture.  The Dead Sea Scrolls discovered 60 years ago provide evidence to this.  Cradle mentioned yesterday God’s Word being the “gold standard” when measuring what you are hearing men say vis-a-vis against what the Word says.  Authors, clergy (including popes) and apologists all may offer opinions or insight—and they may be correct.  It is when such opinions, doctrine or dogma are in conflict with Scriputure than we are required —no must challenge such thought.  The same applies to Protestants who are off base with “name it and claim it” beliefs or men like Bill Hybels at Willow Creek in Chicago.  Protestants do not all line up with him nor do all Catholics line up with things coming from the Vatican.

Okay,

I just read this:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm

If you ask me, Luther was mentally ill.  He was severely abused child raised in a stoic, unbending household…He seems to have responded first by seeking out the same in his religious life, and then by rebelling against all authority.  He suffered from lust, drinking, over eating…not fruits that point to a true reformer…was filled with hate and anger…claims to have battled physically with satan….and was tormented by the thought that he may have single handed broken the church…he was also apparently later “used” by the political men of the day to further their ends.

It seems as if his change in thought began after much influence by humanists and atheists…

If you ask me, this man was sick, and his delusions were fed by his feelings of unworthiness brought on by his upbringing and not by his actual problems with the church…

Twelve,

Posted by Twelve Oaks on Thursday, Aug 12, 2010 12:32 PM (EST):

MK, You have asked several questions. Since we can’t discuss them all at once, which one would you like to discuss first?

Let’s start with what punishment are we relieved of due to Jesus death?

John, why do you refer to the OT as extra-biblical?  What is the problem with Paul stating that works of the law do not earn salvation?

KR,

Protestants do not all line up with him nor do all Catholics line up with things coming from the Vatican.

Yes, and when a Catholic disagrees, he is dissent.  When a protestant disagrees he goes down the street to a new church .

There is no dissent in the protestant church because there is always another church around the corner that will line up with what you want to believe.

Guys,

We are up to 591 comments.  Not sure if the site will shut down after 600 (300 seems to be the magic number).  If it does, we should all email the editors again.

If it gets lost forever….what do you want to do?  Meet somewhere else?  Go to the newest post and pick it up from there…quit??

MK, I would hope the editors would find this discussion both beneficial and healthy and even to those who are only reading.  They should continue to allow the comments.  If not, they should warn us in time so we can make other arrangements between ourselves OR provide a separate blog for us to access.  What do you think ??  MK, Faithful, Cradle, Tweleve et al?

KR,

I would think so, but what if they are not reading along?  My concern is that we’re cut off and don’t know where to go…so yeah, what do Cradle, Terry, Faithful, Twelve and the others think…

I’d personally like to continue…

I have so many more things to understand about what you guys believe, I feel like we’ve just touched the tip of the proverbial iceberg!

I’d like to continue as well.  If we get cut off for some reason, I suggest we continue to return to this site until we can get the comments section up and running again through the continued kindness of the editor.  In other words, if you log in one day to find the comments closed, keep returning over the next several days until the comments are turned on again.

Twelve,

Sounds like a plan…

Also, as a backup plan we can always hook up at my own blog and decide where to go from there.  Not continue there, (though of course we could do that too) but as a place to meet…

2secondsfaster.com

It’s not very active right now as both of us have pretty much taken over the summer, but Ill know to check there if all else fails.

Plus, I’m going out of town for 5 days…leaving this Saturday and I’d hate to think that while I was gone every one lost interest and gave up…

This way you’ll know where to find me if you still want to continue and all other plans have failed!

Dear all, It’s set to shut off at 750 comments, from the original 300.

WE LOVE YOU THOMAS WEHNER…WILL YOU MARRY US!?!?!  :)

Thank you, Thomas—and all editors.  Looks like we have a few more days to go.  Alright guys, —back to the grind.  LOL.

I’d love to continue the discussion - yes, Thomas et al editors- thank you!

It’s 1:45PM California time, and I just received this blog update = this message makes Number 601.  This has to be *news* to have such an in-depth coversation among Catholics; frankly, it should make a headline on Spirit Daily - that’s where I first found this link!

I’m a former subsciber (hard copy) of the Register, but hadn’t followed its stories for a couple of years.  After their generosity in extending this blog, I signed up for their daily e-news.

Will read this in detail and respond again later - thanks!

Twelve,

This might have gotten lost in the shuffle.

The first question I would like you to answer is twofold.

We say that Jesus paid our debt?  Correct?  What was our debt, and what, precisely, did His death “buy” for us?  (I know it didn’t buy anything per se, just a figure of speech…His death paid for something we owed.  What did we owe, and what did Jesus death pay for?  You could also answer “Why did we owe it?”)

Thanks

Our debt is the debt owed for sin.  Our earthly sin nature —in our naturalness (the flesh).  Unless Jesus comes again in our lifetime, we shall all die physically.  For those in Christ, His death paid for OUR penalty that we owed physically as a result of Adam’s fall.  Christ’s blood atonement enables us to live forever with Him spiritually.  Man is born with a dead spirit until you are born again —of His Spirit.  We all die physically.  Those in Christ will not die Spiritually.

MK - When we are born ONCE (physically) we die TWICE (physically and spiritualy).  When we are born TWICE, we die only ONCE (physically).

You asked “What punishment are we relieved of due to Jesus’ death?” = we are relieved of ALL punishment.  There are consequences due to our bad choices.  But Jesus paid the price for all our sin.  The wages for sin is death.  He died for us on the Cross, so we would not face a spiritual death.  We merely experience a physical death, and then we have His promise: “Absent from the body, present with the Lord”.

Regarding listening to other people to form our opinions - I formed my opinion 100% by reading Scripture.  I remember thinking, “Why didn’t they ever teach me this in school?”  I had 12 years of wonderful Catholic education.  But I learned nothing of eternal value and my security was not in Him.  My security was in trying to live below God’s radar screen, and to “be good”.  I didn’t know at that time that ALL our good works are like dirty rags to a holy God and it is all due to His grace that we are saved.

As for Martin Luther’s life before he was a priest - Augustine was about the same, maybe worse, in fathering a son out of wedlock.  Luther had no choice but to leave, because church leaders in those days wanted to kill him.  He had to be true to what he knew was true.  He quoted Scripture and in context. What did Luther say that was so bad that they wanted to kill him?

MK, this why so many people laugh at Born Again Christians.  They do not understand what it means to be “Born Again.”  The term, btw, Born Again even though used by Jesus when He spoke to Nicodemus is a realtively recent term in the life of the modern Evanagelical church.  It became more well known back in the 1970’s when President Carter identified himself as being Born Again.  Moreover, Pastor Jerry Falwell (now deceased of the Thomas Road Baptist Church in Virgina is often credited with making this term more acceptable for Christians to use.  It is NOT his theology behind the explanation, however.  I hope this helps.

MK, I agree with what Cradle and KR have said.  Here are some points:

Our problem is that we are all sinners (Romans 3:10, 5:12).  The penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23).  The price Jesus paid is the shedding of His own blood.  He died in our place so that we would not be separated eternally from God but would live with Him in heaven. (2 Pet 3:18).

I didn’t know at that time that ALL our good works are like dirty rags to a holy God and it is all due to His grace that we are saved.

Well then you didn’t have a wonderful Catholic Education.  Because if you had you would not have been trying to fly under the radar.  This is exactly the mistake that Luther made.  It is NOT what the church teaches.  It is simply what you thought the church teaches.

As for Luther and Augustine…the difference is that the fruits of Augustine’s conversion were awesome…He GAVE UP that life.  For Luther, he only TOOK UP that life AFTER he had his epiphany.

The wages of sin is death.

So can we agree that the debt that we owed was our life.  Jesus died so that we may live?

Where I am running into trouble is that He removed the debt of ALL our sin…

Cradle,

As for our good works as being like dirty rags…what a sad, sad concept.

I am not like a dirty rage.  I was created GOOD.  I AM good.  Not perfect but GOOD.  God is ALL good.  He is not capable of making something like what you describe.  He loves us.

I would NEVER look at my children and say that no matter what they did, it was like dirty rags.  I know each of my children.  I know that they are GOOD.  Not Good because they are my children, but good because they are creations of God. 

He looked at what He created and said IT IS GOOD.

KR,

I am familiar with the term.  Catholics are born again also.  At our baptism.  Our souls were wiped clean and we got a fresh start.  But that is not what you believe happened to you.  You believe you are still dirty.  I fail to see how that can be described as born again.  Your the same person, but God says He doesn’t mind anymore.

Okay, so we all agree that Jesus won our eternal, spiritual life for us, by giving His own.

Can you now tell me why you believe that there is suffering in the world?

Why do children get Leukemia, or wifes with small children lose their husbands.  Why are people starving and babies dying horrible deaths in their mothers wombs?

Why does God allow this suffering, and what does it mean?

How many protestant pastors came out and said that Katrina, or the earthquake in Haiti, was a punishment from God for our sinful ways?

Do you not believe that at His second coming there will be earthquakes and famines and floods?  Why?  What is responsible for this suffering?

Twelve,

The penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23).

Is death the ONLY penalty, or is the ultimate penalty.  Do we die because we sin, or do we die because of the FIRST sin?

If you have been “justified” and seen as righteous, is the penalty for sin still death?

I am having a hard time reconciling the two concepts.  The penalty for sin is death.  Jesus died so we don’t have to die.  We still sin.  The penalty is no longer death.  Is there NO penalty?  Is sin just tolerated?

MK writes, “Is death the ONLY penalty, or is the ultimate penalty.  Do we die because we sin, or do we die because of the FIRST sin?”

Romans 5 says that when Adam sinned we also sinned.  Theologians look at that in two ways.  Either he was our federal head, our representative, so that when he sinned we all sinned; or since we come from Adam we were in a sense in his loins when he sinned, therefore we all sinned.  The result is the same in either case: we have all sinned because of the first sin.

If you have been “justified” and seen as righteous, is the penalty for sin still death?

If we are justified, there is no more penalty for us, because God has declared us righteous.  He is able to make this declaration, because Jesus died to pay our penalty.  Further, when He died, He died for all of our sins.  Romans 3: 25 says that as a result of the shedding of His blood that God’s wrath is removed against those who are justified by faith.

That is what takes place in regard to justification.  However, there two other important themes related to this situation.  One relates to the discipline of God against those who sin; the other relates to rewards in heaven.
1.  What happens when believers sin:  The Bible teaches that if believers continue to grieve the Holy Spirit, quench the Spirit, walk according to the flesh rather than the Spirit and essentially live in a way that is not pleasing to God, he will discipline them as a parent disciplines a child.  He does it because he loves us.  This discipline can be extreme to the point of taking a person out of the world early.  This discipline may be very difficult on the recipient of it, but God disciplines those He loves.
2.  What about Rewards:  The Bible also teaches that there are rewards in heaven.  There are several crowns promised for different types of godliness, i.e, the crown of righteousness for those who have loved his appearing; the crown of life for those who love Him, etc.
3.  Sanctification:  Believers are expected to mature in the Lord.  If we could dress people according to their spiritual maturity, many sixty-year old men would be dressed in diapers, staring at their fingers.  The Lord has other plans; He wants us to mature so we can be fruitful for Him, using our spiritual gifts for His glory.  Many of the commands in the NT relate to things we should do in order to grow.  For example, we should pick up our cross daily.  We should pray without ceasing.  We should love our neighbors and help the widows, aliens and orphans.  If we continually fail to make godly choices we will not mature as the Lord desires.

People who fail to distinguish between these themes can confuse some essential truths.  For example, they can confuse the Lord’s discipline of His children as being a penalty for sin for which Jesus died.  Likewise, they might confuse what is required for rewards as a requirement to obtain eternal life.  They can change the gospel into a list of demands by confusing what is required to mature as a Christian with what is required in order to be justified, i.e. believe

I hope that helps.

Responding in a hurry – I believe I got these verses correct, but please let me know, if I missed anything.  USCCB Online Bible is easist:

Isaiah 64:5 “…all of us have become unclean men, ALL our good deeds
are like polluted RAGS.

St. Paul to Romans 7:18, 24 “…For I know that good does not dwell
in me, that is, in my flesh…for I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want, miserable one that I am!  Who will deliver me from this mortal Body?”

St. Paul to Titus Chapter 3:3 “For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, deluded, slaves to various desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful ourselves, hating one another, BUT when the kindness and generous love of God our Savior appeared, NOT BECAUSE OF ANY RIGHTEOUS DEEDS WE HAD DONE BUT because of His mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.whom He richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ, our Savior, so that we might be JUSTIFIED BY His GRACE and BECOME HEIRS in the hope of eternal life.

The nuns meant well – but as for teaching religion, I never, ever had security about God.  I pictured my little soul getting blackened, and then made white again, when I went to confession.

That’s that I used to lie in confession.  It’s not that I was so good.  It was that I let things go – I don’t keep records of offenses, not even mine.  So I would say the same 3 sins over and over, each week during confession, and I’d change only change the order.  1) I disobeyed
my mother.  2) I told a lie 3) I said a bad word.

Funny thing was that I could never figure out why the ‘temporal punishment’ was so often different when it was the same 3 sins each week, only varying the order.

I went to a class reunion last year, and was shocked that there were only 5 out of around 300 girls that attended the Mass held that weekend.  Most do not attend Mass anymore.  I can’t help but wonder if ALL priests taught the Bible, the Church would be PACKED.  People want the TRUTH, and most are interested in our faith, when we are asked.  We just need the TRUTH, and even the Catholic Church holds that Scripture is Holy-Spirit inspired. 

Your Chicago area may have more educated priests than we do here.  And lastly, your children are a gift from God -  most certainly, THEY are not dirty rags.  But any ‘good works’ we do is LIKE dirty rags to a holy God.  Like giving a child’s crayon painting to a famous artist.  It is LIKE dirty rags.  Back tomorrow! Thank you!

Okay,

So what about the person that is basically not sinning.  I don’t mean a perfect person, but a person who is sincerely trying to live a Godly life.

Lets look at the child with Leukemia.  What is going on there?  The child is hardly able to sin.  Not really.  Say the child is 5 or 6.  Her parents are good Christians.  Yet she got Leukemia.  Why is she suffering?  How is this a discipline.

I mean, I see what you are saying about people who “believers continue to grieve the Holy Spirit, quench the Spirit, walk according to the flesh rather than the Spirit”,  but what about those that are “Maturing”?

Why do they suffer?

Earlier I asked you what Sanctification means and you gave me a different answer…

“Sanctify means “to set apart.”

Now you tell me it is maturing…

What you call sanctifying, we call “works”.  Not working your way to heaven, but “works”  Good works.  So the only real difference I can see in our understanding of growth is that we believe if you don’t continue to grow (do good works), then you lose the benefits/rewards of your initial grace.  You can always “step back into the covenant” but if you don’t then you will not reap the benefits.  Seems fair to me.

You would say that if you don’t continue to “grow”, to be sanctified, then God will discipline you, but you will not loses the benefit of eternal life?

Twelve,

Skip the second question and stick to the first.  Let’s keep talking about suffering.  The other one will end up being a distraction.  We can get to it later…okay?

Cradle,

I can buy the “LIKE” rags bit, bukt Luther believed we ARE rags.  That we are BAD.  At least that’s the sense I got. 

Here, let’s look at St Pauls quote…

</B>“For I know that good does not dwell
in me, that is, in my flesh…for I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want, miserable one that I am!  Who will deliver me from this mortal Body?”<B>

He is very careful to say, in his flesh.  He distinguishes between his soul and his body.  His soul wants to do good, his body is not under the control of his soul.  This is something we ALL struggle with.  The solution is not to declare that HE is bad, but to pray that his soul is stronger than his body.  All of us must master our bodies and desires.  It’s basically whats wrong with the world today.  We let our bodies do the controlling.  Sex, drugs, gluttony, greed….we are no longer trying to be virtuous.  We are simply trying to be “happy”.  And failing miserably.

This is exactly what Luther was dabbling in when he began to question the church.  Humanism…utilitarianism.  This is what confused him.

Paul was struggling with the age old temptation of which will be master?  My body or my soul?

But I do not think he was saying that HE, himself, was bad…or evil.

Cradle,

So I would say the same 3 sins over and over, each week during confession, and I’d change only change the order.  1) I disobeyed
my mother.  2) I told a lie 3) I said a bad word.

You were a child.  For heaven’s sake…you were but a babe.  You were learning!

Now if you told me that you were 26 and still saying the same 3 sins over and over…

You had a child’s understanding of what sin and confession was.

I LOVE confession.  I’m talking to Jesus and telling him all the mistakes I’ve made, and how I want to do better and how I know that I can’t unless He helps me. 

When you’re seven, the priest tells you to say three hail Mary’s or an Our Father.  Now, he tells me…well, let’s just say that it’s a whole lot more in depth.  IF you go to a “kosher” priest.  KR is right about that.  SO many priests were not formed properly!  But even if he does tell you to do 4 jumping jacks and eat a bologna sandwich, that’s not your problem.  Do it.  Or think of your own.  As Twelve pointed out, it’s about discipline, not punishment!

I mean, really, how many Hail Mary’s do you think a 7 year old needs to say to offset the sin of “saying a bad word”!?!?!?  lol

And lets look at this passage more closely…

St. Paul to Titus Chapter 3:3 “For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, deluded, slaves to various desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful ourselves, hating one another, BUT when the kindness and generous love of God our Savior appeared, NOT BECAUSE OF ANY RIGHTEOUS DEEDS WE HAD DONE BUT because of His mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.whom He richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ, our Savior, so that we might be JUSTIFIED BY His GRACE and BECOME HEIRS in the hope of eternal life.</i>

I’m sorry, did he just say he saved us through <b>the bath of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit…

He didn’t say through belief…he said throught THE BATH…baptism.  He/they were save through BAPTISM and HIS GRACE…Hmmmm…sounds pretty dang Catholic to me.  What did that Grace and Baptism do?

BECOME HEIRS in the HOPE of eternal life.

Not the GUARANTEE of eternal life.  Not the permanent, can’t take that away, good forever, no need to worry eternal life, but the HOPE of eternal life. 

Now why would he hope for something that he was guaranteed to get?

MK,  “Why do people suffer?”  This is the age old question, and I don’t profess to be able to enlighten you on this matter.  However, here are some things that help me in thinking about it (in random order)
1.  Deut 27 and 28 contain the blessings and the cursings God pronounced upon the nation of Israel for obeying or disobeying the Law of Moses.  If a person obeyed, he would prosper; have a great harvest, etc.; if he disobeyed, he would not prosper, might be sent into exile, etc.  The Jewish people of Jesus day often felt that if a person had riches he was favored by God.  If a person had a disease, a deformity or a calamity, he probably had sinned.  Remember when the people asked, “who sinned, this man or his parents?”  In any case, today we cannot look at people with cancer, for example, and say that they must have sinned.  We do not live under the Mosaic Law, and the blessings and cursings do not directly play out in our lives the way they did to the OT Jews.
2.  Adam and Eve lived in a perfect world.  Had they not sinned, there would be no sickness, death or suffering.  However, because they sinned, we live in a fallen world that includes sin, death and suffering.
3.  When we put our trust in Jesus, he gives us a new nature.  However, we still have our old sinful nature.  Our sin nature gives us the desire or inclination to do sinful things.  Our new nature gives us the capacity to walk with the Lord and live according to the leading of the Holy Spirit.  When we fail to walk with the Spirit we sin.  That sin can create suffering for us and for others.
4.  The Devil and his fallen angels are very active in the world.  They tempt people to sin, to do evil to each other, to engage in all kinds of sinful, ruinous and horrible actions against God, against people, against animal and against the natural world.  Much suffering and destruction results from this activity.
5.  Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins.  One day all suffering will be gone.  However, for now it is still in existence.
6.  When God made the world, he said “It is good.”  Of all the possible plans, He created a world that includes the possibility of sin, suffering, death and destruction.  However, of all the choices, this one is the best possible choice.  Therefore, God there is a divine purpose in creating a world with suffering.  In some way, the suffering will bring great glory to God in the ages to come.
7.  A person in a wheelchair may never walk in this life.  A child with cancer may die at the age of 2.  A single mother of 6 kids may be murdered in the super market parking lot.  All of those incidents are horrible.  However, when we get to heaven it is very likely that people from all ages, all walks of life and all circumstances will be able to stand up and say, “I was in a wheelchair for thirty years. Was God’s grace sufficient for me? Yes it was.”  or “I was an orphan and raised by a pedophile.  But even in the darkest moments, God was with me.  When nobody loved me, he was with me.  In that way, people throughout eternity will praise the Lord.
8.  Finally, a person lying in a hospital bed in a comatose state can still worship the Lord.  It is possible for such a person to exercise all of the fruit of the Spirit, i.e. love, joy, peace, self-control, patience, etc. (Gal 5).  In that way, the person who appears to be suffering most and delivering very little to society, could actually be living a fuller life than the person who has everything, enjoys perfect health and has not apparent problems.

I hope that helps.  Also, I would like to add, that when we say that our righteousness is as dirty rags, we don’t mean that people don’t do good things for others.  What we mean is that the goodness of people can never attain to the righteousness required to satisfy a holy God.  In that sense our hearts are exceedingly wicked, and there is no good in anyone.  There are still neighbors who help one another, children who obey their parents (much of the time), etc.  But none of those acts will satisfy God’s demand for righteousness.  I hope that helps a bit.

Twelve,

In that sense our hearts are exceedingly wicked, and there is no good in anyone.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it…

God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.

  God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good.

We were created in HIS image.  There is no way that we are evil in our hearts…bad to the bone.  No our “works” are not perfect.  No we are in no way up to snuff…but we are GOOD!  We ARE good.

MK, “Sanctify means “to set apart.”  “Now you tell me it is maturing…”

The basic idea is “to set apart.”  God sets us apart.  However, we are also commanded to sanctify ourselves in the sense that we separate ourselves from sin and from the things that defile us.  This process involves obedience.  As we mature, we obey to a great degree and we set ourselves apart from sin. God is also involved in the process of sanctifying us.  We cannot do it without His enablement.

What you call sanctifying, we call “works”.  Not working your way to heaven, but “works”  Good works.  So the only real difference I can see in our understanding of growth is that we believe if you don’t continue to grow (do good works), then you lose the benefits/rewards of your initial grace.  You can always “step back into the covenant” but if you don’t then you will not reap the benefits.  Seems fair to me.

You would say that if you don’t continue to “grow”, to be sanctified, then God will discipline you, but you will not loses the benefit of eternal life?

I would not refer to “the benefit of eternal life,” but merely to “eternal life.”  Of course, it is a benefit, but I just don’t refer to it in that way.  I’d have to think about that a bit.

Second, there is a major difference between the Catholic concept of works and the evangelical concept. First of all, for an evangelical, works play no part in our justification before God for eternal life.  He saves us apart from works, by His grace, through faith.  That means that if we commit a sin, we do not lose our eternal life.  Why?  Because Jesus paid the penalty for all of our sins, and He satisfied God who turned away His wrath forever.  He has saved us “to the uttermost.”

In contrast, the Catholic can lose his justification by committing any of a number of sins, such as anger, greed, quarreling, etc.  If we are truly honest about that list, we must admit that don’t really keep even that list of sins.  Two problems arise with the Catholic approach.  First, we must do works in order to maintain our justification.  Second, we must do works in order to re-establish is.  Second, if we die having fallen from grace, we don’t go to heaven.

Evangelicals see that system as a system of works that essentially nullifies and negates what the Bible teaches about grace, justification, propitiation, the atonement and several other key theological truths.  Furthermore, under that system, a person does not know for sure whether he has eternal life or whether he will go to heaven.  That lack of assurance is not in harmony with what the Apostles taught or how they lived their lives with a joyful certainty that heaven was their home.

MK writes, “BECOME HEIRS in the HOPE of eternal life.
Not the GUARANTEE of eternal life.  Not the permanent, can’t take that away, good forever, no need to worry eternal life, but the HOPE of eternal life.

Now why would he hope for something that he was guaranteed to get?”  MK, the biblical concept of hope is not like the weatherman’s concept.  The weatherman says, “I hope it doesn’t rain.” However, he has little confidence in that hope.  When the Bible uses the word “hope” you could substitute “confidence.”  It is an assurance that something will take place.  “My hope is in the Lord” is a statement of confidence in Him who died for me.  There is no wavering in the word “hope.”

mk writes-“If you look at the process of discerning doctrine in the early church, you will indeed find discrepancies.  But if you look to the doctrines themselves, you will find that they have remained the same from the minute they were declared until today.

The Truth was always there, but discerning doesn’t just come from willing it.  It takes discussions, prayer, reflection, argument….only then does it become an infallible teaching.  Thank God for that, because if doctrine were made at the drop of a hat I’d become a Muslim!”
The problem with your assertion is that what the RCC beleives today is not what the NT church believed as seen in the NT. For example, where do indulgences come into sanctification in RCC teachings? Where do we see Jesus or His apostles teaching this kind of thing?

Twelve,

Okay.  That was an honest answer.  You don’t know why we suffer.

The Catholic Church has a different answer.

We also believe that the wages of sin is death.  ALL sin.
BUT
We believe that the sin Jesus died for was the Original Sin.

That is washed away, removed, gone, zip, zilch, nada through baptism.  Not belief, but baptism, as Paul states in the passage that Cradle posted.

Now, that leaves all other sin.  For these subsequent sins, Jesus died so that we be forgiven for them.  Not remission of temporal punishment for them, but FORGIVEN for them.

So if I commit a sin and ask forgiveness, then I am forgiven.  Period.  IF the sin is grave enough to require sanctifying grace to erase it, then I have that sanctifying grace at my disposal…because Jesus died and made it available…through the SACRAMENT of confession.  God is still the one forgiving me, but He is doing so by re-infusing me with Holy Spirit.

Grave sin…Holy Spirit cannot abide in me….He moves out….I go to confession…clean house…receive sanctifying grace….Holy Spirit moves back in. 

Now, each and every sin that I commmit reverberates.  Leaves an echo…

And those echoes cause pain, and sorrow, and illness, and sadness….

Jesus taught us that suffering offsets sin.  He could have simply eaten a banana and called it even, but He didn’t.  He suffered and excruciating, horrible death.  In a word, He suffered.

Hmmmmm…connect the dots…suffering offsets sin.  Paul calls us to SHARE in Christs suffering.  How do we do that?  By making our own sacrifices (imperfect and pathetic as they are) to offset sins that we or others commit.

These sacrifices can be anything from prayer, offering it up when we clean the toilet, fasting, almsgiving…anything at all…and we place that offering on the proverbial altar and give our little tiny pathetic suffering/sacrifice up to Him.  If it is pleasing to Him, He accepts and a little bit of “evil” has been offset. 

So if I commit a sin, a person in Japan might fall ill.  Not a specific person…just the idea….BUT, if I make a sacrifice for that sin, perhaps a special grace will be given to someone. 

Either way, I have helped to cancel, not the sin, but the effects of the sin.

In this way, we share the cross.  God doesn’t mind that it’s small.  IT’s like that picture you talked about.  Sure it ain’t Da Vinci, but it was done out of Love, for our brothers and our sisters. 

He doesn’t NEED us to do this, but He chose to let us help. 

He said, see, no greater love has a man than to lay down his life.  Do the same.

Look.  Look how I suffer to make up for your sins.  Do the same.

Bishop Sheen says “The tragedy in the world is not that there is suffering, but that so much of it is wasted!”

Imagine, if everyone of us offered up those crippled legs, or broken hearts, or illnesses…even the little things, like waiting in line, or catching every red light…IMAGINE how much better the world would be, if EACH of us did their share and climbed up on the cross with Jesus…sharing in it.  Imitating Him.

==

MK, I don’t know if you are serious about not understanding or just baiting us?
In your naturalness —human flesh, you have a sinful nature inherited from Adam
and Eve.  Because we are sinful (on our own) a holy God cannot look upon sinful
men.  It is contrary to His holy nature.  The good news is that our nature can be
can be changed only by the payment of someone NOT sinful —only God Himself.
Thus, He exchanged His life for ours.  His payment for all sin was accrued unto us
as our benefit to not die (penalty for sin)—but to have everlasting life.  FYI, this
understanding not —not contrary to Catholic doctrine.  Our spirit upon earthly
(physical death) will thus reign with Him forever.

Here is another illustration…

Suppose my 8 year old was playing ball in the house.  He knew he shouldn’t have been but he did it anyway (sin).  He broke the vase that my grandmother handed down to me.  I loved that vase.

When I come into the room, he is in tears.  He is SO sorry.  You can see it in his eyes.  He knows he has done wrong, he knows he has hurt you and he desperately wants you to forgive him.

Of course, you do.  Yeah, you might yell a bit first (what you called discipline), you might even withhold dessert that night, but in the end, you forgive him.  Completely.  You don’t harbor a grudge.  You don’t bring it up over and over. (Well, maybe when he’s engaged you tell the story to his fiance…).

So it’s over right?  Just like God forgives us?

Well, no, not really.  Because the floor is filled with pieces of broken vase.  Someone else could get hurt and the poor dogs feet….

So it must be cleaned up.  You hand him the broom. 

This is the two parts to forgiveness.  First the actual forgiving…second, the temporal punishment (I agree that punishment is not really the right word)...something must be done to atone.  Not atone as in the way Jesus died to atone for our sins…that was the first part, but to atone and make as right as you can.

Clean up after yourself…

Bishop Sheen said this:

“There are two great evils in the world.  Sin and Suffering.  Sin is moral, suffering is physical, and the latter is the result of the former.  What happens to the body as pain, and to nature in the form of cyclones, earhquake and floods, is ultimately an echo, a repercussion and effect of what has already happened in the moral universe”

Mk writes-“ Twelve,
In that sense our hearts are exceedingly wicked, and there is no good in anyone.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it…

God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.

  God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.”
  God also said: “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;

  and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food.” And so it happened.

  God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good.

We were created in HIS image.  There is no way that we are evil in our hearts…bad to the bone.  No our “works” are not perfect.  No we are in no way up to snuff…but we are GOOD!  We ARE good.”

It is true we are created in His image but it was the fall that brought sin into the world. The image of God in us has been marred by sin.  If we were good why would Romans 3:9-12 says this—“
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;
10 as it is written,
      “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
  11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
      THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
  12 ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
      THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
      THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”

Our nature is bent towards doing evil continually. If you want to see how evil we are there is a calculation that I think brings out how sinful we are. If you were to commit just ten sins a day everyday for 50 years how many sins do you think you would have committed? Over 180,000 sins.
That’s quite a rap sheet don’t you think? Do you really think we are good after all these sins?

Posted by John on Thursday, Aug 12, 2010 1:17 PM (EST):
John writes “While it is quite true that there was corruption in the Church, and rightfully pointed out, the real issue here is not the fallibility of men, which we know to be true. The issue here is whether or not it is reasonable to accept the gap in church history from the apostles to Martin Luther. It is impossible for Paul to have believed in the Bible alone, since many of the books weren’t yet written, and since his testimony is accepted in biblical canon, it is free from theological error, but how did he learn of the correct theology? The answer is oral tradition, of course, but do you think that Paul is damned for not believing in the Bible alone?”

What is this oral tradition that Paul believed? Do you think it was the various teachings of the RCC of today?